Insights
How to find an expert witness for a California, Washington or Oregon case
Most expert searches begin with the wrong question. Counsel starts by looking for a discipline they have already named, when the more useful first step is establishing which discipline the matter actually turns on — a determination that is frequently narrower, broader, or simply different from the initial description.
Start with the question the opinion has to answer
Not with the specialty. Write down, in one sentence, the proposition the finder of fact has to accept for your case to succeed. The discipline follows from that sentence, and it is often not the one that seemed obvious.
A worker falls from a partially completed structure and is seriously injured. The instinct is to retain a construction safety expert. But if liability is conceded and the fight is over whether the disc herniation predates the fall, the load-bearing opinion is medical, and the safety expert is supporting at best.
Reverse the facts — injuries undisputed, liability contested between a general contractor and two subcontractors — and the safety opinion becomes the whole case while the medical opinion becomes a formality.
The same matter, described the same way in a complaint, needs different experts depending on what is actually in dispute. Identifying that before searching saves both the cost of the wrong expert and, more expensively, the weeks spent developing an opinion nobody needed.
Match the expert to the forum, not just the subject
California, Washington and Oregon apply three different admissibility standards in their state courts, and all three sit in one federal circuit applying a fourth. An expert whose testimony history is entirely federal has been operating under a different framework from the one a state-court matter will apply.
This is not a reason to exclude such a candidate, but it is a reason to ask. An expert who has only ever written Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports may not appreciate what a California simultaneous exchange requires, or that Washington applies a general-acceptance test to novel scientific method rather than a reliability analysis.
The question worth asking a candidate directly is what they know about the standard that will govern. An expert who answers it precisely has usually thought about admissibility as part of their work rather than as someone else's problem.
Vet for the specific subject, not general eminence
Qualification is subject-specific. Under California's Evidence Code section 720 and its equivalents elsewhere, an expert plainly qualified in general terms can still be excluded on the particular subject at issue — and that is the most common successful exclusion argument.
The failure mode is a distinguished witness offering an opinion just outside their actual field: a general surgeon on an emergency medicine standard of care, a structural engineer on a waterproofing detail, a forensic accountant on a business valuation. Each is a real discipline the witness does not practise.
Testimony history matters here more than credentials. Ask what the candidate has actually testified to, how recently, in what forums, and whether they have been excluded or limited — and ask for the transcript in any matter where they were challenged. An expert who volunteers a prior challenge and explains it is a better risk than one whose history is opaque.
Conflicts have to be checked before substantive discussion rather than after. A conflicted expert who has heard the theory of the case is a problem that cannot be undone.
Have the candid conversation before the engagement
The most valuable thing an expert can tell you is that the records will not support the opinion you were hoping for. That conversation is worth having before a report is drafted, before a fee schedule is signed, and certainly before a disclosure deadline.
A preliminary screening conversation should cover what records exist, what an opinion in the discipline would realistically be built from, and whether the materials look suitable for expert review at all. Where they do not, saying so early costs a phone call. Discovering it after a deposition costs considerably more.
It also matters that the review happens before a written report is created. An expert who reviews the records and gives a verbal preliminary assessment first leaves counsel in control of whether a discoverable document comes into existence.
Where directories fit
Directories are useful for establishing that a discipline exists and roughly what it costs. They are less useful for the judgement calls above, because a listing cannot tell you whether a particular expert's actual field covers your specific question.
The practical approach is to use a directory to develop a shortlist and then do the subject-specific vetting yourself, or to work with someone who does it as a matter of course. Either way the vetting is the work; the list is the easy part.
Our own approach is the second: a screening call identifies the discipline, a candidate is vetted for credentials, subject-matter fit, testimony history and conflicts, and counsel speaks with the expert before retention.
Frequently Asked Questions
Early enough to complete a substantive review before the disclosure obligation in your matter, and early enough that a candid assessment can still change the strategy. In California in particular the simultaneous exchange means both sides commit without seeing the opposing opinion, which puts weight on completing the workup early.
What they have actually testified to, how recently, in which forums, whether they have ever been excluded or limited and what happened, what they know about the admissibility standard that will govern, and — most usefully — what they would need to see in the records before they could support the opinion you are looking for.
Rarely, and it is the most common route to exclusion. Qualification is subject-specific, so an expert offered just outside their actual practising field is vulnerable regardless of how distinguished they are in general terms.
A consulting expert advises counsel without being disclosed and, subject to the applicable rules, their work generally receives greater protection from discovery. A testifying expert's opinions, and the material considered in forming them, are disclosed. The distinction and its consequences are matters for counsel.
Related practice pages
Complimentary consultation
Discuss your matter with Dr. Alban
Preliminary screening is complimentary. Send the posture of your matter — jurisdiction, claims, and the schedule you are working under — and you will get a candid read on which expert discipline the issue points to and whether the materials look suitable for expert review. Serving attorneys and law firms throughout California, Washington, and Oregon — available for consultation, report preparation, deposition, and trial testimony, in person and remotely.
- Service area
- California, Washington, and Oregon — state and federal courts, in person and by remote deposition.
- Phone
- (862) 319-8643