" After working in the Banking Industry for more than 32 years. . . Working with attorneys in recent years when I wasn’t a party to the litigation has been a real eye-opener. Before continuing, I have to add that the vast majority of attorneys where I have been retained have been exceedingly bright, talented, knowledgeable and quick studies of what can sometimes be very complex financial transactions. The eye-opener part; however, has been some common mistakes they make in picking and utilizing an expert consultant or witness. . . . Read the entire article.

We continue to point out that a most useful  web site is www.daubertontheweb.com . It can help lawyers  keep up with the Daubert rules in various states. That web site offers in depth help: appellate cases, organized by circuit and field of expertise, a procedural guide, tactics suggestions, and a text discussion. For general advice regarding the "gatekeeping" that courts use in admission of expert testimony, for most states, see Bucklin's legal article on the gate keeping rules.

See also the discussion of "Legal Malpractice Opinions" to understand the sundry types of opinions you might want an expert witness to consider in legal malpractice cases, some of which are overlooked by attorneys.

If you wonder whether an expert witness needs a license from the state in which she testifies as an expert in that field, see "License Lack."

The Supreme Court's Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision in 1993 forever changed the rules on expert testimony in most states, and even where it did not change the words of the rules in a state, it has influenced how those judges look at expert testimony.   We have a useful Reference  Article on Daubert Tests.,  a short form discussion, for busy attorneys and experts to use as a helpful reference, Click Here for the Reference  Article on Daubert Tests..

We have some expert witness law scattered at various places at this site.  For example, regarding North Dakota, our page on that state's law discusses how North Dakota decides the issue of qualifications in a traditional manner, and not with Federal law Daubert style reasoning. 

Until an expert witness is specified to be an expert witness in litigation, he/she can be classified as a consultant to the lawyer retaining the expert.  As a consultant, the communications to/from the attorney are privileged.  This doctrine is well examined in Shooker v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County), 111 Cal.App.4th 923, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 334 (2003). Shooker points out that in a legal malpractice action, a party may initially retain an expert witness as a consultant. The court held that the designation of an expert trial witness did not, without more, waive the party's attorney-client privilege regarding that witness. Under California law, the designation is as a "possible" witness until the status becomes that of a "prospective" witness. That occurs when privileged documents are produced or testimony is given, such as in a declaration. If the designation is withdrawn before disclosure of a significant part of a privileged communication (as in this case), or before it is known with reasonable certainty that the party will testify as an expert, the privilege remains intact.