An expert opinion is a specialized conclusion or inference made by an individual with expertise in their field. These opinions are intended to aid the fact-finder understand complex issues in a case. Expert opinions are typically grounded in reliable methods and data commonly relied upon by professionals in the subject area.

To assist a trial court in fulfilling its gatekeeping function, experts must provide an explanation of how their experience leads to the conclusions they reach. It is not enough to simply present the expert’s resume or a list of credentials, awards and continuing education in their field (Daubert).

One of the most common mistakes attorneys make in deposing experts is asking an open-ended question such as “Are there any additional comments you would like to make?” This can result in the expert making unhelpful and/or misleading comments, or opening the door for the attorney to follow up with questions that may lead to improper objections.

Trial courts have considerable leeway to decide in a particular case how to evaluate an expert’s reliability, and that the specific factors mentioned in Daubert are neither exclusive nor dispositive. Moreover, the Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) indicated that a nonscientific expert must also satisfy the reliability standard set forth in Daubert.

As you prepare for your next trial, make sure you are familiar with the latest developments in this area of law. To avoid expert testimony being excluded based on the expert’s speculative conclusions, focus on the evidence that supports your client’s position and make sure your expert has access to all relevant documents in the case. In addition, keep in mind that simple demonstratives that communicate a strong concept will be far more effective than detailed spreadsheets in helping your expert’s verbal testimony stand out.