Dealing With the Opposing Expert Witness

We recently received an email from a reader of our newsletter, Expert News, about a problem the expert experienced with an opposing expert. With permission, I am reprinting it below and hope that you may have some advice for this expert witness.

There may be nothing one can do when an opposing expert egregiously inflates or fabricates their credentials and one's own client attorney fails to use evidence to prove it, but what about when that expert also tells lies about you?

I've had this experience in two recent cases, where the other expert stated on the record to both juries that I have a vendetta against her and that I had contacted "literally hundreds of people" and "fabricated stories about her," neither of which is true.

The truth is, several years ago at the request of my client attorney I checked on some items that appeared on this other expert's CV. I contacted about a dozen (not hundreds!) of the references on the CV. At no time did I fabricate anything, but simply asked whether they could verify the references, including claims of advanced degrees from a major university and claims to train government agencies in our particular field. For every item I obtained a letter from the reference stating that the claim was incorrect or untrue. In addition, I later obtained a transcript of this person's voir dire in the case I was involved in, where some of these claims were made.

Last fall, I once again opposed this person. I supplied my client attorney with the letters and transcript and he used the evidence. Our client won the case. The attorney talked about filing perjury charges against the expert, but that never happened.

In a more recent case opposing the same expert, she made some of the same claims, but this attorney client did not use the information he had to refute what she said, leaving the jury with the impression that she did indeed have the stellar background that she claimed. In addition, the expert told the same tale about me supposedly having a vendetta and that I had contacted hundreds of clients and fabricated stories about her. My client attorney allowed those statements to stand without questioning them. I thought he was saving the questions for my testimony.

However, when I took the stand, not only did my client attorney not give me any opportunity to respond to those false statement about me (which did make it look as though I had a vendetta), he barely allowed me to state my own credentials, and my exhibits were not allowed in--I still don't know why. So I was forced to explain my opinion without the important demonstrative exhibits that I had spent a lot of time preparing. Our client lost this case.

My problem is not that our client lost, but that he lost based on misrepresentations. When an expert inflates their credentials, there is no longer a level playing field. When the jury hears an expert say all these wonderful things that they have supposedly done, it gives their testimony greater weight. Untruths about the opposing expert make it far worse.

This person's untrue statements about me have affected my reputation and credibility. How do I know? Because the jury foreman stated that the jury found the other expert "more credible." Given the facts as stated above, I can understand why they would get this impression.

So, I wondered whether this type of situation is a common problem and what other experts do about it.

Please share any words of wisdom or similar experiences in the comments. (You can post anonymously).