Case snapshot, fast and focused

• Tell us the brief case posture and the current expert report deadline.
• Select the practice area that best fits this matter Options: Antitrust/competition, Commercial contract/dispute, Intellectual property, Securities/financial, Insurance coverage/loss allocation, Regulatory/administrative, Torts/personal injury, Other
• Indicate the forum where the matter will be decided Options: Federal trial court, State trial court, Arbitration panel, Administrative agency, Appellate court, Unknown/undetermined
• Approximately how many parties are aligned on your side (plaintiffs or defendants)? Options: Single party, 2-5 parties, 6-20 parties, More than 20
• What single missing fact or document would make you stop retaining an outside expert right now?

Where the pressure is: deadlines and exposure

• Which disclosure or methodological risk feels most likely to derail your expert's admissibility? Options: Unverifiable data, Unsupported modeling assumptions, Prior inconsistent publications, Expert lacks domain bench depth, Communication style undercuts credibility, Other
• Walk me through the timeline constraints and the next three hard dates we should know.
• How many days from today until your nearest mandatory deadline? Options: Under 14 days, 14 to 28 days, 29 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, More than 120 days
• If the expert cannot produce a defensible report within your disclosure window, would you withdraw the claim, seek an extension, reassign internally, or take another path? Options: Withdraw claim, Seek extension, Reassign internally, Proceed without expert, Undecided
• Who on your team owns the deadline and can authorize expert retention? Options: Lead partner, Senior associate, In-house litigation director, Practice group co-lead, Committee/consensus

Where the case is fragile: impeachment and methodology risk

• What prior testimony, publication, or public statement by a proposed expert would make you worry about impeachment risk?
• Describe the opposing expert positions that have most complicated your strategy in similar matters.
• How often do opposing experts in your matters rely on the same modeling assumptions you expect to use? Options: Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never
• By what timeline would opposing counsel need underlying data to mount a timely admissibility challenge? Options: Immediately upon request, Within 7 days, Within 14 days, Within disclosure window, Depends on the request
• Who typically handles vetting prior testimony and publications on your team? Options: Lead partner, Senior associate, Paralegal/researcher, External consultant, Shared responsibility

How you want the expert to perform in deposition and at trial

• What courtroom behavior from a testifying expert would make the judge and jury discount their entire opinion?
• Describe the communication style you prefer from experts during deposition and trial Options: Plain and accessible, Technical but concise, Academic and cautious, Firmly advocacy-aligned, Adaptable to audience
• How important is a candidate's prior Daubert survival record when you choose between otherwise similar experts? Options: Critical, Very important, Somewhat important, Not important
• If an expert's prior testimony contains statements that could be used against you, would you proceed with mitigation, require a different candidate, or decline to retain? Options: Proceed with mitigation plan, Require different candidate, Decline to retain, Undecided
• Would you terminate the engagement if a proposed expert failed a 2-hour mock cross-examination? Options: Yes, No, but require remediation, Depends on nature of failure, Unsure

The other options on the table

• List the other options you are considering, including internal teams, independent academics, boutique expert firms, and large consulting firms.
• Which internal resources could you use instead of retaining an outside expert? Options: In-house economist/analyst, Corporate finance team, Independent academic contact, No viable internal resource, Other
• What would have to be true about your current in-house approach for you to keep it rather than hire outside help?
• Have any colleagues proposed solving this without an outside vendor or partner? Options: Yes, No, Not sure
• Would you switch from internal plans if an external expert can demonstrate prior admissibility and a clean impeachment record this week? Options: Yes, Maybe, No

Practical readiness: data, compliance, and access

• What single data or compliance constraint could block the expert from completing the analysis on time?
• Select the data sources the expert will need access to for damages modeling Options: Transaction records, Audited financial statements, Internal pricing history, Customer or subscriber lists, Third-party market data, Regulatory filings, Other
• Identify the team or role that controls access to those sources and the typical turnaround time for producing them
• Do you have regulatory, confidentiality, or protective order restrictions that limit data sharing? Options: Yes, No, Unsure
• Please outline the gating approvals or redactions required for data release, if any.
• Do you have secure data transfer methods available now that the expert must use (SFTP, secure portal, encrypted upload)? Options: Yes, No, Need to set up
• How many internal hours per week can your team commit to support expert analysis and model validation? Options: Under 5 hours, 5 to 10 hours, 11 to 20 hours, 21 to 40 hours, More than 40 hours

Scope and success: what would make this engagement worth it

• Name the measurable outcome, stated as a concrete metric, that would make you call this engagement a success.
• Choose from the list the deliverables and formats that must be produced for you to accept the work Options: Expert report with methodology section, Rebuttal report, Fully documented model files, Expert CV and prior testimony list, Deposition prep session(s), Trial exhibits and visuals
• Identify the roles that must sign off on final deliverables and the acceptance criteria they apply
• When a pilot analysis aligns with your expectations, which internal outcome typically follows? Options: Retain expert and proceed, Expand scope of work, Fast-track deposition/trial prep, Require additional validation, No immediate change
• How soon after initial retention do you expect a draft report to be delivered? Options: 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, Depends on data readiness

Decision mechanics: price, approvals, and next steps

• Name the single logistical or budgetary barrier that would stop you from signing an engagement this week.
• State your decision timeline and the role who will be the final approver Options: Immediately, Within 1 week, 1 to 2 weeks, 2 to 4 weeks, More than 1 month
• How would you prefer fees structured for this engagement? Options: Hourly time and materials, Fixed fee for report, Fixed plus success fee, Retainer plus hourly, Alternative arrangement
• Do you require an NDA or master services agreement before sharing confidential data? Options: NDA required, MSA required, Neither required, Already in place
• Please indicate whether you can schedule a selection call within 5 business days if provided a sample expert outline, CV, and proposed timeline within 48 hours Options: Yes, Maybe, No

• Engagement Assumptions and Evidence Intake
• Structured Witness Interview Session 1
• Evidence Review and Methodology Alignment with Counsel
• Mock Cross-Examination and Impeachment Testing
• Evidence and Witness Risk Register and Mitigation Plan

• Produce the mock cross scorecard and annotated transcript for review.
• Compile prior publications and testimony that may affect admissibility and prepare rebuttal notes.
• Explain scoring rubric and objectives for the mock cross
• Mock cross-examination scorecard with ranked weaknesses and exemplar strong answers.
• List of specific revisions to testimony scripts and report language to mitigate impeachment risk.
• Schedule and scope of additional preparation sessions based on performance gaps.
• Confirm case objectives and success criteria
• Update report passages and expert talking points to address identified weaknesses.
• Plan follow-up mock sessions focusing on the highest risk issues before depositions.
• Review identified risks and categorize by impact
• Finalized risk register with mitigation actions, owners, and deadlines accepted by stakeholders.
• Agreed cadence for risk review and escalation path documented.
• Next checkpoint meeting scheduled for status review before disclosure or deposition dates.
• Publish the finalized risk register to the shared workspace and notify the stakeholder list.
• Execute the first-wave mitigation tasks for high severity risks by the agreed deadlines.
• Schedule the next risk review and confirm availability for final deposition prep sessions.
• Complete evidence inventory with provenance and outstanding gaps recorded.
• Prioritized witness roster produced and scheduled for interviews or follow-up.
• Immediate data and collection tasks with deadlines documented for the next session.
• Add all provided documents to the shared evidence inventory with metadata tags.
• Request and track missing documents identified during intake with target delivery dates.
• Schedule the first set of structured witness interviews based on the prioritized roster.
• Written witness summary produced with timeline and key factual assertions recorded.
• Set interview scope and ground rules
• List of statements requiring corroboration and potential impeachment flags captured.
• Clear list of follow-up documents or clarifying questions to resolve disputed points.
• Draft and circulate the witness summary for accuracy review within the agreed timeframe.
• Collect or pull the documents identified as corroborating or contradicting the witness statements.
• Schedule a follow-up interview if material discrepancies or new facts emerge.
• Present proposed analytic framework
• Ratified methodology memo approved for drafting the expert analysis and report.
• Complete list of data inputs and documentary evidence required to run the models.
• Documented plan to address identified admissibility or prior-testimony risks.
• Produce a methodology memo reflecting agreed assumptions, models, and known limitations.
• Request the specified data items and documents by the agreed dates to support analysis.
• Collect and catalog available evidence
• Conduct mock cross-examination
• Assign mitigation actions and set deadlines
• Map evidence to model inputs and identify gaps
• Obtain witness chronological narrative
• Targeted questioning on disputed issues
• Identify and prioritize witnesses
• Assess admissibility and Daubert risk areas
• Confirm communication and escalation protocol
• Debrief and capture observed weaknesses
• Confirm final methodology decisions and deliverables
• Sign off and schedule next checkpoints
• Confirm follow-up evidence and close
• Agree on immediate remediation steps
• Document evidence gaps and next steps

• Expert Search and Candidate Vetting
• Prior Testimony and Publication Review
• Forensic Document and Data Analysis
• Economic Damages Model Development
• Causation and Counterfactual Analysis
• Court-Ready Expert Report Drafting
• Rebuttal Report Preparation
• Daubert Support Memorandum
• Deposition Preparation with Mock Cross-Examination
• Trial Testimony and Direct-Examination Support
• Exhibit and Demonstrative Development
• Workpapers, Reproducible Code, and Data Package
• Sensitivity and Reliability Testing of Models
• Regulatory Testimony and Declaration Package

Expert Search and Candidate Vetting

• Identify the core subject-matter area for the search (e.g., antitrust price-impact, lost profits in contract dispute, environmental remediation cost estimation).
• List the minimum credibility artifacts you require for candidates (examples: curriculum vitae with testimony list, copies of prior district-court reports, docket citations to prior qualifications).
• Specify the allowable jurisdictions or courts for prior testimony that matter to you (e.g., federal district court, state supreme court, arbitration panels). Options: Federal courts only, State courts acceptable, Arbitration panels acceptable, International tribunals acceptable, No jurisdictional restriction
• Provide the timeline for expert retention relative to your disclosure deadline (e.g., retain within 2 weeks, retain within 4 weeks). Options: Within 1 week, Within 2 weeks, Within 3-4 weeks, Flexible beyond 4 weeks
• Indicate non-negotiable disqualifiers for candidates (examples: prior advocacy for the opposing party on the same issues, public statements inconsistent with your theory, lack of direct industry experience).
• Name any specific industries or companies where you prefer the expert to have direct work experience (e.g., telecom carriers, commercial banks, pharmaceutical manufacturers).

Prior Testimony and Publication Review

• Specify which prior materials we should obtain and review for each candidate (examples: full deposition transcripts, published articles, expert reports listed by case docket number).
• Indicate whether you require an impeachment-risk memo for each candidate that flags inconsistent prior opinions, academic publications, or industry consulting engagements. Options: Yes, for all finalists, Yes, for shortlisted candidates only, No
• Identify the maximum acceptable number of prior depositions or reports citing issues you consider high risk (e.g., more than two opposing-qualification challenges). Options: 0, 1, 2, 3+
• Describe the scope of publication checks you want performed (examples: Google Scholar citation list, SSRN papers, industry white papers, op-eds).
• Indicate whether we should obtain courtroom rulings related to prior admissibility challenges (e.g., Daubert/Kumho orders) and include redline excerpts. Options: Yes, include rulings, Only if there was a successful challenge, No
• Who on your team will review and approve the vetting memo and candidate shortlist?

Forensic Document and Data Analysis

• List the primary data sources we must analyze (examples: production BATES ranges, transactional CSV exports, accounting general ledger, ERP extracts).
• Attach or name the dominant file formats and sizes we should expect (examples: Excel workbooks with macros, SQL database exports, PDFs, email ESI TAR files).
• Specify whether privilege-redaction or a privilege-log review is required before forensic processing. Options: Yes, redaction before processing, Privilege log review only, No
• Indicate required deliverables from the forensic review (examples: chain-of-custody log, searchable load file, concordance of key documents). Options: Chain-of-custody log, Searchable document set (OCR/PDF), Extracted datasets (CSV), Privilege log mapping, Other
• Identify any specific custodians or email accounts that must be prioritized for early review (provide aliases or BATES ranges if available).
• Estimate the expected record volume to scope processing and sampling (e.g., number of documents or rows). Options: Under 10,000 documents/rows, 10,000-100,000, 100,000-1,000,000, Over 1,000,000

Economic Damages Model Development

• Specify the damages theories to model (examples: lost profits using before-and-after analysis, reasonable royalty via Georgia-Pacific factors, diminution in value). Options: Lost profits, Reasonable royalty, Diminution in value, Statutory damages, Other
• Identify the primary financial inputs we must obtain from you (examples: revenue by product line, cost of goods sold by month, ledger-level entries).
• State the preferred deliverable format for the model (examples: Excel workbook with locked formula tabs, Python/R scripts plus CSV inputs, integrated dashboard). Options: Excel workbook, R/Python scripts + CSV, Both Excel and scripts, Other
• Indicate the discount rate or discount-rate approach you want applied to future-value damages (examples: company WACC, market-risk premium approach). Options: Use provided discount rate, We need help estimating discount rate, Apply statutory rate where applicable
• Identify mitigation or offset items that the model must accommodate (examples: alternative revenue sources, saved costs, insurance recoveries).
• Who will provide signed source-authority for financial inputs (name and role), and by what date relative to the report deadline?

Causation and Counterfactual Analysis

• Describe the counterfactual scenarios to be analyzed (examples: but-for market share absent alleged conduct, counterfactual pricing path using historical trend).
• Indicate key external data required for counterfactuals (examples: market-index time series, competitor sales data, industry reports).
• Specify the econometric approaches you prefer or that courts in your jurisdiction have accepted (examples: difference-in-differences, synthetic control, hedonic regressions). Options: Difference-in-differences, Synthetic control, Hedonic regression, Time-series forecasting, None specified—advise
• Identify required reliability checks for the causation analysis (examples: alternative sample windows, placebo tests, instrument-variable sensitivity).
• Name datasets you will provide for counterfactual construction and include formats and expected delivery dates.
• Specify whether you need an expert-ready chain-of-evidence table linking each counterfactual input to a production BATES range or source file. Options: Yes, No, Only for core inputs

Court-Ready Expert Report Drafting

• What acceptance criteria will confirm the expert report meets disclosure obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) (examples: CV with list of cases, all relied-upon data attachments, model appendices)?
• Specify the report structure you require (examples: executive summary, methodology, data sources with BATES references, calculation appendix, limitations). Options: Standard FRCP 26(a)(2) structure, Executive summary plus technical appendix, Custom structure—describe below
• Indicate whether you require redline-able draft rounds and how many review cycles we should budget (examples: two draft rounds, three draft rounds). Options: One draft, Two drafts, Three drafts, Open-ended
• Identify any jurisdiction-specific citation or formatting rules the report must follow (examples: local rules on exhibits, page limits, court-seal requirements).
• Provide the deadline for the final report and the date you expect to receive the draft for internal review.
• Who on your side will provide factual corrections and sign off on factual sections of the report (name and role)?

Rebuttal Report Preparation

• Identify the opposing expert reports and the key opinions you expect to rebut (include docket numbers or BATES ranges where available).
• Specify the time window available to prepare a rebuttal after receiving the opposing disclosure. Options: Less than 7 days, 7-14 days, 15-30 days, More than 30 days
• Indicate whether you want a focused technical rebuttal (targeted methodological points) or a full alternative damages estimate. Options: Technical rebuttal only, Full alternative damages model, Both
• List the core documents we should prioritize to develop the rebuttal (examples: opposing model Excel workbook, relevant depositions, underlying contracts).
• State whether rebuttal work requires expedited forensic validation of opposing datasets (e.g., row-level reconciliation with your production). Options: Yes, expedited validation, Standard validation, No
• Who will own final approval of the rebuttal scope and whether to proceed to full alternative modeling?

Daubert Support Memorandum

• Specify the admissibility risks you want addressed in the memorandum (examples: methodology reliability, expert qualifications, exemplar prejudicial statements).
• Identify applicable standards or landmark decisions to anchor the memorandum (examples: Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Kumho Tire, regional appellate decisions).
• Indicate whether you require proposed briefing language or a sealed expert declaration in support of the memorandum. Options: Memorandum only, Memorandum plus proposed briefing language, Include draft declaration
• List supporting exhibits to include with the memorandum (examples: methodology flowchart, validation results, prior-court rulings for the expert).
• Provide the deadline for the Daubert support deliverable relative to the filing date.
• Name the counsel who will coordinate the Daubert filing and who should receive draft review copies.

Deposition Preparation with Mock Cross-Examination

• Specify the format of mock examinations you prefer (examples: full mock with actor-led cross, focused methodology grilling, hot-seat rapid-fire). Options: Full mock with actor, Focused methodology mock, Hot-seat rapid-fire, Combination
• Indicate the number of mock sessions desired and their timing relative to the deposition (examples: two sessions, final session 3-5 days before deposition). Options: One session, Two sessions, Three sessions, More than three
• List core documents to use during the mock (examples: draft report, opposing expert report, key deposition transcripts, demonstrative slides).
• Name any sensitive lines of questioning to rehearse (examples: prior inconsistent statements, consulting engagements, methodological limitations).
• Who will play the role of opposing counsel in mocks and who will observe and score performance?
• Specify deliverables after mock sessions (examples: written Q&A log, scored performance summary, suggested language for direct-examination). Options: Q&A log, Performance summary, Suggested direct language, All of the above

Trial Testimony and Direct-Examination Support

• Specify the anticipated trial role for the expert (examples: primary testifying expert, rebuttal witness, declaration-only witness). Options: Primary testifying expert, Rebuttal witness, Declaration-only witness, Undetermined
• Identify logistics we should plan for (examples: travel to courthouse, secure exhibit binder, real-time model runs in trial laptop).
• Indicate whether you require courtroom technology support for live demonstratives (examples: trial presenter software, video playback, live polling of jurors). Options: Yes, No, Limited support
• Name the hearing schedule and any in-court deadlines we should coordinate with the expert's calendar.
• Provide any venue-specific affidavit or disclosure requirements for testifying experts (examples: judge-specific orders, local rule forms).
• Who will be the day-of trial point of contact for logistics and exhibit handling (name and phone/email)?

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Engagement Letter & Fee Schedule
• Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
• Scheduling & Milestones Agreement
• Expenses & Reimbursement Addendum
• Data Access & Security Addendum (conditional)
• Acceptance, Closeout & Ongoing Support Agreement

• Post-Delivery Health Check (Week 1-4)
• First Outcome Measurement (Week 4-10)
• Acceptance Gate Review (Day ~90)
• Ongoing Case Support Quarterly Review

• Schedule the next quarterly review and circulate a brief pre-read with updated metrics.
• A documented acceptance decision is recorded for each acceptance criterion, with pass/fail outcomes.
• Named signatory or buyer owner has confirmed the acceptance decision where required by the engagement governance.
• Any required remediation items are bounded, dated, and captured for closure tracking outside of the acceptance gate.
• Publish the formal acceptance record showing pass/fail status for each criterion and the named signatory.
• If remediation is required, publish the remediation scope, deliverables, and deadline for each open item.
• Add acceptance outcomes to the shared post-case channel and update the blocker tracker.
• Review open post-case issues and follow-up analyses
• Open follow-up analyses are tracked with clear delivery dates and owners.
• The rate of implementation blockers resolved since the prior review is documented and acceptable to both parties.
• Each prioritized initiative has a client-side owner assigned or a clear plan to assign one.
• Update the shared support tracker with statuses, owners, and delivery dates for all open follow-up analyses.
• Publish the lessons-learned summary and any agreed process changes to the shared channel.
• Confirm deliverable receipt and completeness
• Buyer confirms receipt of all deliverables or documents missing items to be remedied.
• Immediate blockers are identified, triaged, and assigned remediation actions with target dates.
• A shared post-case communication channel and escalation path are agreed.
• Publish a short deliverables checklist noting any missing items and expected delivery dates.
• Log urgent defects in the shared channel and assign remediation target dates.
• Confirm the persistent post-case communication channel and document escalation contacts.
• Present outcome data against acceptance criteria
• Stakeholders agree the current findings acceptance rate and prioritized action count status and understand root causes for any gaps.
• A short, dated remediation plan is agreed to address any unresolved blockers before the Acceptance Gate.
• A clear timeline to the Acceptance Gate is confirmed, including verification steps for each remediation item.
• Publish a remediation plan listing each corrective action, its acceptance criteria, and target completion date.
• Collect and circulate any additional evidence or clarifying documentation needed to improve findings acceptance rate.
• Update the shared channel with a tracker for implementation blockers resolved and open items.
• Restate acceptance criteria and numeric targets
• Reconfirm acceptance criteria and owners
• Present final outcome data
• Track blocker resolution and owner assignment
• Root-cause analysis for any shortfalls
• Lessons learned and process improvements
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Early issue triage
• Document pass/fail per criterion and formal decision
• Confirm readiness for Acceptance Gate
• Agree limited remediation (if required)
• Operational next steps and monitoring
• Short-term remediation planning
• Shared channel and escalation path