Robert Musante's CLE Seminars
The 4 BEST cross-examination seminars ... EVER!

Attacking the Expert's Opinion
and
Attacking the Expert's Pedestal
Two Stand-Alone Seminars

CLE Accreditation Information

Attacking the Expert's Opinion

(4-hr. & 6.5-hr. Presentations)

Attacking the Expert's Pedestal

(4-hr. & 6.5-hr. Presentations)

There is one right, logical method with which to effectively attack the adverse expert’s opinion at deposition … no matter the area of law, no matter the field of expertise. As never before, this seminar brilliantly elucidates that logical method and teaches the archetypal set of integrated questions that are at the heart of every great adverse expert deposition. (See great reviews from cross-examiners doing all types of litigation. One seminar can fit all.)
* * * * * * * * * * *
8:30am - 10:00am (The 6.5-hr. Agenda)

• World-class expert introduced.
• Overview: deposition logic applied to experts.
• When attacks vs. expert should be played at deposition.
• Cross-examiner’s problems and expert's pedestal.
• The structure of every opinion: O = R + 2F.
• End point and subordinate opinions.
• Critical listening skills (a quick test).
10:00am - 10:10am Break
10:10am - 11:20am
• Five categories of expert opinions.
• Two must-be-asked questions.
• Ten types of expert rules.
• X and Y factors defined.
• Scientific vs. experiential rules (science vs. art).
11:20am - 11:30am Break
11:30am - 12:30pm
• Non-expert rules and the cloak of expertise.
• Expert's rule's essential factors ("necessary" and "sufficient").
• Expert's weighing process.
• Critical listening skills (2nd quick test).
• Two incredibly important –and easy to master– techniques.
12:30pm - 1:30pm Lunch
1:30pm - 3:00pm
• Attacks vs. expert’s X factors.
• The certainty scale and two archetypal arguments.
• Six sources of assumptions.
• Attacking expert’s findings derived through expert methods.
• Attacking expert’s findings derived through non-expert methods.
• Expert's self-anointed pedestal-status (3rd quick test).
3:00pm - 3:10pm Break
3:10pm - 4:30pm
• Expert's three –and only three– attacks vs. Y factors.
• Numerical hypothetical questions (bright line test vs. subjective grey).
• Freud vs. Frasier (expert’s searing psychological insights).
• Occam's Razor.
• Musaccam's Razor and the weak links in expert's opinion.
• Attacking expert's double standard re career.
• Attacking expert's double standard re case.

The adverse expert is typically the most dangerous witness and, at the same time, the most vulnerable. Most dangerous because he testifies cloaked in the mantle of the “unbiased scientist”; thus, his testimony –if accepted by the jury– can determine an issue … maybe the entire case. Yet, most vulnerable because, unlike the lay witness who must defend only his first-hand observations, the expert witness must defend his testimony from attacks on many fronts:
* * * * * * * * * * *
8:30am - 10:00am (The 6.5-hr. Agenda)
Curriculum Vitae Attacks
• False claim of achievement
• Professional shortcoming disguised or omitted
• Multiple versions, suspicious inconsistency
• Padded with non-achievements
• More theoretical than practical
• Hands-on experience out-of-date
• Journeyman, a curious selection
10:00am - 10:10am Break
10:10am - 11:20am
Marketing Attacks
• Huckster
• Targets too one-sided
• Undignified marketing
• Marketing falsely cast in a favorable light
Forensic Business Attacks
• Professional witness
• Offensively large income/fee rate
• Quality-control sacrificed to increase volume
• Assembly-line opinions
• Not sufficiently trial-tested
• Clients too one-sided
• Exceeded scope of expertise
• No verifiable track record re accurate opinion-making
11:20am - 11:30am Break
11:30am - 12:30pm
Prior Court Performance Attacks
• Testimony excluded or stuck, including Daubert challenges
• Judicial finding of misbehavior

Relationship with Opposing Attorney (OA) Attacks
• Biased in favor of OA:
-Prior alliance with OA, business or social
-Multiple current cases with OA
-Shared mutual contacts with OA
-Allowed OA to direct investigation
-Opinion-suggestive communication from OA
-Chummy correspondence
-Enormous fee
-Socializing with OA
• Deviation from practice re arm's-length relationships with OAs
• Admission: pro-OA bias, or implausible denial of bias
Time & Billing Records Attacks
• None, lost, or incomplete: still paid
• Too many hours: churned file or padded bill with fake time
• Too few hours: didn't perform all investigative tasks claimed
• Double standard: pro-OA bias
• Deviation from practice re time-keeping & billing OAS
12:30pm - 1:30pm Lunch
1:30pm - 3:00pm
Investigation Attacks
• Reviewed too little information
• Explored too few avenues of inquiry
• Admission: investigation was compromised
- Implausible claim: perfection
• Relied on assembly-line
-Concealed that reliance
• Deviation from practice re investigative protocol
Investigative Notes Attacks
• None, lost, or destroyed: hiding the ball & wiggle-room
• Incomplete or inaccurate notes
• Notes insufficient re scope & complexity of purported investigation
• Deviation from practice re note generation and maintenance
Report-Making and Opinion-Testing Attacks
• No report: hiding the ball & wiggle-room
- Unlike CE's expert
• Report co-authored
- Co-authorship concealed
• Opinion road-tested with another expert
• Opinion road-tested with OA
• Slanted word choice
• Omission of opposing information
• Deviation from practice re report-making & opinion-testing
• Admission: knew final opinion OA preferred AE to champion
- Implausible claim: had no clue
3:00pm - 3:10pm Break
3:10pm - 4:30pm
Evaluation of CE's Expert Attacks
• Admission: CE's expert capable & honorable
• Admission: CE's expert's CV superior to AEs
• Ungracious criticism of CE's expert's ability or honor
• Admission: CE's expert's database superior to AE's
- Implausible denial of superiority
• Admission: CE's expert's investigation & opinion indeed worthy of consideration
- Implausible blanket disrespect
Deposition Performance Attacks
• Internal inconsistency: time & billing records vs. investigative notes vs. written report vs. testimony
• Misbehaved:
-Dodged questions' key words
-Played "What's it mean?" game
-Fought hypothetical questions
-Filibustered answers
-Snail-paced document review
-Accepted coaching from OA
-Implausible ignorance
-Implausible memory failure


Return to Home Page

contact