Recently, I was defending a deposition of our expert on a real estate tree case right before trial. Our client was an arborist who testified to the same opinions previously expressed in his report, which had been provided to the other side in discovery.

Opposing counsel started arguing with our arborist. I was delighted to watch a one-sided sparring match with my expert dominating opposing counsel.

Do not do this. Do not argue with an expert. You will most likely lose. They are the expert, not you.

I have had many personal injury cases where I know the defendant’s medical experts are coming up with utter bullshit opinions to support the defendant’s contention that my client was not injured.

If I even depose the doctor, I take down their opinions at deposition, but that is for another post. I do not argue with the doctor because I am not a doctor and will not help win the case. Arguing with experts generally makes you look difficult or just stupid, like the opposing counsel in the deposition I recently defended.

Melvin Belli was the only lawyer I know of to get into the cage, argue with a doctor, and win because he knew more about the medicine than the testifying opposing expert.

Therefore, refrain from arguing with experts or risk losing credibility with the jury.

Contact our office if you have a trial coming up with contentious experts.

Post A Comment