Expert-witness support

Workpapers and exhibits built to the standard a testifying expert can rely on and defend, with every figure cross-referenced back to its underlying calculation and source document. Rebuttal schedules prepared against an opposing expert's report when one exists. A running log of assumptions and methodology choices, so the expert and counsel can see exactly how each number was derived. And delivery on whatever timeline the case schedule sets, including turnaround on revisions as the matter develops or as new documents are produced.

Engagement usually starts once counsel and the testifying expert have agreed on the scope of the report. We build the underlying analysis, whether that is a damages calculation, a funds-flow trace or a reconstruction, then organize it into exhibit form with each figure cross-referenced to its source. Drafts go to the testifying expert for review before anything is finalized, since the expert's own judgment shapes the final report even though the underlying schedules are ours. Revisions during discovery, as new documents surface or the other side's report is produced, are worked into the same file rather than started fresh each time.

Attorneys who have already engaged, or are about to engage, a testifying expert and need the underlying accounting work built to the standard that expert's report requires. It also fits an expert who has been retained but needs support staff to build and cross-reference exhibits under a tight case schedule, or a client whose attorney has asked for a rebuttal analysis of an opposing expert's report before a deposition.

Exhibits built late in the process that do not cross-reference cleanly back to source data, which becomes obvious the first time opposing counsel asks a follow-up question at deposition. A damages or tracing calculation with assumptions buried inside a formula instead of documented separately, so nobody but the person who built it can explain a specific input months later. A rebuttal that disagrees with the other side's conclusion in general terms without working through their actual methodology line by line. And revisions handled as a rebuild from scratch each time new documents arrive, instead of updating one maintained file.

Analysis and exhibit-building runs in Microsoft Excel, with source accounting data pulled from QuickBooks Online, Xero or whatever system the matter's underlying business used. Document review and cross-referencing against the broader case record, where volume calls for it, runs through Relativity or a similar litigation-support platform, coordinated with counsel's own document review team rather than run independently of it.

Expert-witness support is scoped and quoted per engagement, driven by how much underlying analysis needs to be built or rebuilt, how many exhibits the report requires, and how much rebuttal work the opposing report demands. A straightforward damages exhibit built from clean records costs less than a multi-year reconstruction feeding a complex report. We quote in writing once the scope and case schedule are known, and revise the estimate if the scope changes materially as discovery proceeds.

The test that matters is whether the testifying expert can defend every figure in the report under cross-examination, which means every exhibit has to trace cleanly back to a source. A senior reviewer reviews the workpapers internally before they reach the expert, checking cross-references and flagging any assumption that is not documented plainly enough for someone outside the engagement to follow.

Federal courts assess expert testimony under the framework set out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires that an expert's opinion rest on sufficient facts or data and reliable methods, reliably applied to the facts of the case. We do not draft the expert's opinion; that judgment belongs to the credentialed testifying expert. What we control is the discipline behind the numbers feeding that opinion, built so the methodology and its inputs are documented clearly enough to withstand exactly the kind of scrutiny that framework invites.