Expert Witnesses Embrace Digital Media Platforms – Interview with Attorney Mitch Jackson

On October 14, 2015, interviewed Expert Witness and 2013 California Lawyer of the Year, Mitch Jackson, on the benefits of Expert Witnesses embracing digital media to promote their services. To watch the interview, click the link below.

Mitch Jackson was admitted to the California Bar in 1986 and immediately opened up his own practice representing victims of personal injury and wrongful death. In 2009, Mr. Jackson was named Orange County “Trial Lawyer of the Year,” by the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. In 2013, he received the California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year (CLAY) Award for litigation. According to California Lawyer Magazine, the CLAY Award recognizes attorneys who have changed the law, substantially influenced public policy or the profession, or achieved a remarkable victory for a client or for the public and have made a profound impact on the law. Mr. Jackson is also an expert witness in legal malpractice matters.

Mr. Jackson is an active social media influencer with a strong presence on Twitter, Facebook, Periscope, Blab, Instagram, among others. In addition to his legal practice, Mitch Jackson maintains several websites promoting: livestreaming, communication, Rotary service, and, most importantly, “Being Human.” To learn more about Mitch Jackson, his practice, and his social influence, visit the following sites: was established to allow professionals a platform to showcase their areas of Expertise. Since 1994, we have been providing millions of users worldwide with access to specialized knowledge. We believe our members should have control over monetizing their specialized knowledge and expertise. In this day in age of high technology, there is no need for a broker or middle man to mark up fees or market your expertise. Put your best foot forward with

ADA Compliance: Bus & Motorcoach Liability

A recent article by Member, Ned Einstein, President of Transportation Alternatives, a passenger transportation and automotive consortium engaged in consulting and forensic accident investigation, touches upon the safety and liability of buses and motorcoaches transporting passengers in wheelchairs. Mr. Einstein effectively communicates the legalities involved with wheelchair securement and ADA compliance. Click the link to read the full article:

Ned Einsten“Buses and Motorcoaches: Safety v. Liability” 

Ned Einstein has been qualified as an Expert Witness in accident analysis, testimony, and mediation in vehicle and pedestrian accidents involving transit, paratransit, schoolbus, motorcoach, special education, non-emergency medical transport, taxi, shuttle, and child / elderly transport systems and services.

View Ned Einstein’s Profiles on

Expert Witness Credibility Can Make or Break a Case

In the forefront of legal news today is the Glossip v. Gross death penalty challenge / lethal injection case before the Supreme Court. Set for oral argument today, the Justices must determine if Oklahoma’s use of the common surgical sedative midazolam fails to make prisoners unconscious during lethal injections, violating the Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.”

According to ProPublica, the case took a turn when Oklahoma’s pivotal witness, Dr. Roswell Lee Evans, testified in trial that inmates “would not sense the pain” of an execution after receiving a high dose of midazolam. That, in and of itself, is not enough to turn heads but legal and medical professionals took note when Dr. Evans, a board certified psychiatric pharmacist and the dean of the Harrison School of Pharmacy at Auburn University in Alabama, testified that he has never used midazolam on a patient, nor has he ever personally induced anesthesia.

To make matters worse, 150 pages of his 300 page expert report were printouts from the consumer website, whose disclaimer reads, “not intended for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.” Furthermore, pundits were grumbling at the fact that Dr. Evans had not published a paper related to his pharmacology research since 1996.

Last month, a brief was filed by 16 independent professors of pharmacology disputing Dr. Evans’ claim. The professors, according to Probublica, contended that, “It is widely recognized in the scientific and medical community that midazolam alone cannot be used to maintain adequate anesthesia…”

Caution SignCaution all Expert Witnesses! Credibility is Everything.

Once general competency is satisfied, an Expert Witness’ knowledge of the subject matter affects the weight and credibility of his testimony. Since a general rule of evidence is that a witness may only testify to what they have personally observed or encountered through their five senses, this “Sunday Pundit” is concerned for the good doctor. His lack of experience with the midazolam, his unreliable sources, and his lack of peer support do not bode well for him or the state of Oklahoma.

Ponder the The Daubert standard  for evaluating the reliability and relevance for “good science” and make your own judgment:
1) whether the scientific theory can be (and has been) tested;
2) whether the scientific theory has been subjected to peer review and publication;
3) the known or potential rate of error of the scientific technique; and
4) whether the theory has received “general acceptance” in the scientific community.

We are interested in your comments. Please feel free to share.

Expert Witness Marketing – The Importance of Publications

Marketing in the Expert Witness arena should not be a stagnant process. In such a competitive market, there must be more than a simple description of services. When relevant information is provided to potential clients, the chances of being retained are much higher.

The goal in any marketing strategy is exposure to the widest number of viewers. For Expert Witnesses and Consultants, publications are an extremely effective tool to help cast a wide net. Member Articles and Case Scenarios posted on receive phenomenal exposure on search engines like Google, Yahoo, and Bing.

Informative topics with Search Engine Optimized titles can garner excellent exposure simply because there is a need for such knowledge. For instance, Member Peter Wade, who worked with the United States Postal Service for over 30 years, many of those in administrative and supervisory positions, posted an article entitled, “Certified Mail Versus Certificate of Mailing: What’s the Difference?This article has been viewed 18,013 times to date (See View Charts). Based on the numbers, there is a definite need for the dissemination of this knowledge Article View Source Chart Article View Source Chart Article Frequency Chart Article Frequency Chart

Case Studies and Case Scenarios are also an excellent alternative to writing something academic and time consuming. Case Studies allow attorneys to read fact patterns that may be similar to cases on which they are working. It also provides a sample of analytical and report writing abilities. Party names and other identifying information can be altered for confidentiality purposes. The format is a simple checklist with which attorneys are familiar:

  • Explain the facts of the case (the represented parties; how the case arose; allegations, etc.)
  • Explain the technical issues of the case
  • Give an analysis / opinion
  • Explain how the case concluded

For those involved in promoting their Expert Witness or Consulting services, publications serve as the “squeaky wheel.” The more squeak, the more oil. The numbers reflect that professional interaction with the targeted market and business community can favorably affect the amount of exposure received and, more importantly, the bottom line.

Precision is Key to Patent Indefiniteness Challenge

Prior to June of 2014, the standard for patent review made it nearly impossible to invalidate a patent claim for “indefiniteness” or ambiguity. The  U.S. Supreme Court drastically changed that standard in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Nautilus brought the case before the Supreme Court based on the notion that “the patent system is best served when patent claims are precise, definite, and certain. Ambiguous and indefinite patents stifle competition and encourage unnecessary litigation.” The Supreme Court agreed saying that the ambiguity the lower court used to evaluate the patent would “leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass.” In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court asked the court of appeals to reevaluate whether Nautilus infringed on Biosig’s patent design based on stricter standards.

Although the Nautilus case involved a utility patent, it is suggested by Industrial Design expert, Robert John Anders, that this standard would most likely apply to design patent drawings as well. In a recent article, Mr. Anders posits that the use of break lines or brackets with “indeterminant” measurements could also lead to ambiguity, making design drawings vulnerable to patent infringement challenges.


Read the full article here: Design Patent Drawing Conventions: Break Lines That May Be Fatal

Robert John Anders is a member of the Industrial Designers Society of America and the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society with more than 40 years of professional experience. Mr. Anders has been retained as an Industrial Design Expert for over 17 years.

Sports Neurology Expert Witnesses and Concussions

Concussions have been front and center in the news for the last few years. According to the Mayo Clinic, a concussion is “a traumatic brain injury that alters the way the brain functions. Effects are usually temporary but can include headaches and problems with concentration, memory, balance and coordination. ” Technological advances in Sports Neurology have doctors concerned that such a broad definition does the public a great and very harmful disservice.

photo courtesy of

Photo Courtesy of

In his article, “Plain Talk On Concussions,” Sports Neurologist, Dr. Vernon Williams, explains that the public’s understanding of concussions has been oversimplified for many years.  There are many factors to take into consideration when evaluating a patient. They can include previous brain injury, age, and even gender. Dr. Williams explains that,

“You can’t see a concussion on x-ray, CAT scan, or most MRI’s. But the lack of abnormality on those tests does not mean the brain hasn’t been injured. The injury occurs on a cellular level. When special methods are used, there is evidence of change in how the brain is working that last for days to weeks (evidence of persistent brain dysfunction) even when the injured athlete feels that they are back to 100% and the physical examination is normal.”

Players who engage in high contact sports like football  have a high risk for concussion. The problem has become so pervasive that parents and players have pressured the  NFL and the NCAA to tighten safety standards.  Innovations in helmet safety have come too late for many players. When NFL Hall of Famer, Mike Webster, was diagnosed with a progressive degenerative disease of the brain known as CTE, fellow retirees took note. Before his death, Webster suffered from amnesia, dementia, depression, and chronic pain, all symptoms of CTE.

Since then, approximately 5,000 retired players have filed suit against the NFL alleging the entity hid the dangers of concussions. Among the plaintiffs in these lawsuits are Art Monk, Tony Dorsett, Jim McMahon, Jamal Anderson, and Ray Easterling. Considering how high profile these cases have become, it is no wonder that brain injury has become a growing concern in Sports Medicine litigation.

Concussion litigation in the NFL, sports clubs, and even in school yards across the country have garnered so much attention that George Washington University’s law school has developed a course devoted solely to the legal implications of traumatic brain injuries.  Michael Kaplen, who teaches the course, is a plaintiffs’ lawyer who has worked on cases involving traumatic brain injuries for more than two decades. Kaplen believes the NFL became responsible for the safety of its players when it began studying the cause and effect of concussions over twenty years ago. (See article in The

Public safety is the common thread for sports neurologists like Dr. Vernon Williams and litigators like Michael Kaplen.  With advances in medical technology, doctors have learned that the basic warning signs of a concussion which have prevailed for so many years are no longer sufficient. In light of this progress, making the NFL and other organizations accountable for the well-being of its players may be the catalyst to improved neurological health not only for athletes, but for everyone who has suffered traumatic brain injury.


*Vernon B. Williams, MD specializes in Sports Concussions, Sports Neurology, and Pain Medicine. Dr. Williams is the Founding Director, Center for Sports Neurology and Pain Medicine at the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopedic Clinic in Los Angeles, CA. His clients include the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Kings, Los Angeles Sparks, among many others.  Dr. Williams’ Profiles on





The Tech Industry and Litigious NPEs

Patent InfringementIt comes as no surprise that the tech industry is the most litigated of 2012-2013. With companies such as Apple, Samsung, Verizon, LG, and Google vying for major shares of the market, competition can get fierce. For over a year, Samsung and Apple have been slugging it out over the copy and design of the iPhone’s software features. These, however, are operating companies with products and services to sell, both of which are vulnerable to fundamentally important legal counter-assertion defenses. Intellectual property litigation gets even more complicated and egregious when it is engendered by entities with no competitive products and services. The same defenses do not apply to to these entities. Even with new and pending patent reform laws in place, high tech litigation is overwhelming our court system and affecting the bottom lines of many high tech companies in industries such as electronics, communications, semiconductors, and software.

The most notable combatants in the IT litigation arena are the Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), derogatorily known as “patent trolls.” These companies base their revenue stream solely on collecting, licensing, and enforcing patents, litigating whenever there is a threat to their patent’s market share, whether real or dubious. Although under criticism from some, James Bessen and Michael Meurer from Boston University released a highly publicized study estimating that the direct cost of NPE patent assertions is “substantial, totaling about $29 billion in accrued costs in 2011.” Although this includes patent infringement awards in all industries, high tech makes up fifty percent of NPE suits filed.

Litigation brought on by NPEs, both costly and time consuming, is difficult to defend. According to PatentFreedom, a company dedicated to assessing and addressing specific NPE risks, since NPEs “do not sell products or services (other than the licensing of their patents), NPEs typically do not infringe on the patent rights contained in others’ patent portfolios. As a result, they are essentially invulnerable to the threat of counter-assertion, which is otherwise one of the most important defensive – and stabilizing – measures in patent disputes.”

The America Invents Act (AIA) passed in September of 2011, which was meant to limit the number of defendants an NPE can join in a suit, has not curbed the amount of patent infringement litigation occurring today. The major tenet of AIA is a shift from “first to invent” to “first to file.” As such, NPEs can no longer gather all possible defendants in an effort to maximize awards. With good intentions, Congress set out to decrease the “deep pocket” syndrome, thereby reducing the number of suits filed. Although the AIA changes the economics of litigation, it has not, in the past few years, decreased the number of cases filed by NPEs. In fact, PatentFreedom estimates that, NPE  litigation against operating companies has increased by 170 from 2012 to 2013, and this is only the halfway mark. In 2012, the number of cases filed against operating companies was 4,229. So far this year, that number has increased to 4,400.

In March of 2013, the Shield Act was passed to curb the amount of egregious lawsuits brought on by NPEs. In effect, it makes NPEs responsible for the litigation costs of failed suits. However, the Shield Act requires defendants to take the suit all the way to final judgement. Since much time and resources are required to litigate these suits, most settle well before judgement. This leaves the door wide open for opportunistic NPEs.
Considering they have the right to sue, do NPEs, by their nature, have an unfair advantage over the operating companies they are suing. Considering the state of affairs today, should Congress do more to level the playing field? Only time will tell how this battle plays out.

Law Technology Today

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

Trial Insider

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

Compelling Discovery

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

The Jury Room

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

Abnormal Use

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

EvidenceProf Blog

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

Pirated Thoughts »

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog

Above the Law

A Legal Web Site – News, Insights, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts

Expert Witnesses & Consultants Blog


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,833 other followers

%d bloggers like this: