Steven Lange of the Florida Chapter and Christopher Dore of the Arizona Chapter were granted the professional designation of Certified Forensic Litigation Consultant (CFLC)™. By virtue of their qualifications as a practicing expert witness, they met the minimum criteria required of Certified Forensic Litigation Consultants.

At FEWA you become part of a community of experts who allow you to stay current on topics that can impact how and why you do your business. Being an Expert Witness can be an exciting way to utilize the years of experience you have in your industry and being better prepared for the process can reap many long-term benefits for you.

Don’t wait to renew your 2021 membership! Log in to your account on the FEWA website to submit your 2021 membership dues, update your Find an Expert directory listing information, or purchase additional listing categories. For renewal questions, contact FEWA at info@forensic.org or by calling 312-981-6780 (weekdays, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm Central Time).

Dr. James Apesos has decades of experience operating a busy private plastic surgery practice, training surgeons, managing emergency rooms, and hospital facilities. He has a wide experience dealing with both pediatric and adult surgery from congenital to reconstructive to cosmetic. Board certifications in plastic and reconstructive surgeon, general surgeon, and hand surgeon allow him to deal with most any and all potential medical malpractice situations. Learn more about James below. 

As an expert witness, you’ll want to equip yourself with a foundational understanding of the key elements every attorney must prove in each case. You may be called upon to help lawyers establish these points either as a consultant during case preparations or as an expert witness testifying during proceedings. The three basic legal concepts of liability, causation, and damages are a good place to start. Their definitions do vary slightly state by state, but still share essential concepts which govern every legal dispute.

Based on a recent article from Legaltech® News, remote work not only has improved productivity and work quality, but we may continue to see the remote work model indefinitely. In the article Remote Work Made E-Discovery Employees More Productive. Will It Last?, written by Frank Ready, the author states: “E-discovery providers may be seeing unexpected productivity gains as employees continue to adapt to the remote working conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. But maintaining those gains in the long run will require companies to permanently rethink the way that they approach worker engagement, while also persuading clients that remote e-discovery work poses a minimal threat to security.”

You’re an expert witness. You investigated the facts, you developed your expert analysis, and now you have an expert report and opinion ready for court. This for example is what a business valuer provides their client. There it is. Case closed right? The next steps are depositions, critique the other side’s report and testify at trial. That is what many experts think and do. They do not advocate for the client, but they do advocate for their position. Is that enough? Is there a better way? Let’s explore this. May there be a better way for the expert to maintain integrity and offer more timely closure to the ultimate client saving time, money, energy, toil, mental health, and physical health?

One of the most fundamental tasks for a lawyer is to establish a strategy in each case. Once the facts are understood, a lawyer weaves this together with legal theories to sketch out how to present the story of how their client was harmed or injured. These early exercises lay the basis for the big strategic decisions like whether to fight, settle, or keep options open. Expert insights on strategy also assist lawyers’ development of early negotiation posture and case narratives.

A Maryland plaintiff was stripped of a medical malpractice damages award of nearly $1 million after her expert witness was disqualified for failing to meet the requirements of Maryland Code 3-2A-04(b)(4). In an unreported opinion for <i>Brenda Brown v. Falik & Karim P.A.</i>, et al. released October 2, 2020, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the plaintiff’s expert witness did not pass the state’s “twenty-percent rule,” which precludes an expert witness from testifying in medical malpractice cases if the expert spends more than 20% of their time on expert witness activities.