Tag: Consulting

Expert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyForensic DNA

Suzanna Ryan – Forensic DNA Expert Interview

on January 25, 2016

In this one hour interview offered by Experts.com and moderated by Nick Rishwain, Forensic DNA Expert, Suzanna Ryan, expounds upon her experience and expertise.  Through targeted questions and answers, viewers get a better understanding of what services a Forensic DNA Expert Witness can offer to attorneys. Ms. Ryan also explains the circumstances under which she is retained as a consultant, unrelated to litigation.

Suzanna Ryan, MS, D-ABC, is a former forensic DNA analyst and forensic DNA Technical leader with 15 years of experience in the field of Forensic Serology and DNA Analysis. She has had the opportunity to work for both public and private DNA laboratories and has testified numerous time for both the prosecution and the defense.

Ms. Ryan has been accepted as an expert witness in forensic serology and DNA analysis over 60 times in her career in state superior courts, state supreme court, federal court, and military court, and has been deposed as an expert witness in both criminal and civil trials over 20 times.

View Suzanna Ryan’s Profiles on Experts.com

Expert WitnessSearch Engine OptimizationSEO

Expert Witness Marketing – The Importance of Publications

on April 2, 2015

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 Experts.com 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

Experts.com Article View Source Chart

Experts.com Article View Source Chart

Experts.com Article Frequency Chart

Experts.com 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.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessIndustrial DesignLitigationPatent Infringement

Precision is Key to Patent Indefiniteness Challenge

on February 18, 2015

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.

Image

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.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessMedical

Sports Neurology Expert Witnesses and Concussions

on May 13, 2014

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 premierelife.ca

Photo Courtesy of Premierelife.ca

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 NewYorkTimes.com).

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 Experts.com.

 

 

 

 

Expert WitnessIntellectual PropertyLitigationPatent Infringement

The Tech Industry and Litigious NPEs

on September 4, 2013

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.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessMarketing

Press Release – The Benefits of Distribution

on February 7, 2013

Press Releases are an excellent way to promote Expert Witness and Consulting Services. Aside from publishing press releases to a variety of print, broadcast, and online media, they can also be sent to current and prospective clients. The benefits of issuing a press release are many:

  • Perception Is Key – The idea that an Expert’s services are deserving of media coverage plants the seed that he is successful. In other words, if the New York Times  is taking space to publish a press release announcing an Expert’s or Consultant’s new book , then he must be worthy of consideration for an engagement. A press release, in essence, is mass confirmation of your achievements.
  • Third Party Endorsements – A press release issued on an Expert’s or a Consultant’s behalf by a third party is much more effective than one issued on their own behalf. Most Experts and Consultants are uncomfortable touting their own successes. By letting a third party advocate on their behalf, it takes the negative effect of self-promotion out of the equation.
  • Opportunity to Inform – A Press Release is issued mainly for a specific reason, whether for the publication of a new book, a business milestone, or a litigation success. It does not, however, have to be limited to that success. If written properly, press releases can include a short biography on the Expert or Consultant, communicating their areas of expertise and offering website links for more information on their services.
  • Maintain a Presence –  “Out of sight, out of mind.” It is important for professionals to let their current and prospective clients know that they are consistently relevant in their field of expertise. By issuing a press release, they keep their clients informed of their achievements and remain fresh in their minds for future jobs.

For more information on how Experts.com can help market your services and promote your achievements through a Press Release, please contact us at press@experts.com.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessLitigationMarketingTestimony

Watermarking Your Curriculum Vitae

on February 5, 2013

As disconcerting as it may be, unscrupulous activity does exist in the legal industry. As a leader in the Expert Witness and Consultant field, Experts.com believes in not only promoting our members’ services, but in protecting them as well. As such, we encourage our Experts and Consultants to Watermark their Curriculum Vitae.Watermark CV

Marking the CV with such statements as “UNOFFICIAL,”  “NOT YET RETAINED,”  “DO NOT SUBMIT,” or “UNAUTHORIZED,”  prevents unconscionable practitioners  from downloading  a CV and submitting it as their “Retained” expert witness, or implying such, without the knowledge and consent of the expert.  The watermark makes it clear to other parties what the status of the relationship is between the attorney and the expert.

The benefit of watermarking a CV is twofold. One, it allows an Expert to promote his services and qualifications and still feel secure that they will not be presented without his express consent and, two, it allows the Expert an opportunity to offer the most current version of his CV. Since the attorney must contact the Expert for an “Un-Watermarked” version, the Expert can then update the CV and bring to the attorney’s attention any new work experience or litigation successes.

For more information, or to become an Experts.com Expert Witness or Consultant, please contact us at support@experts.com.

ConsultantsExpert WitnessInsurance

Insurance Expert Witness on Litigation and Selection of Experts

on September 19, 2012

Andrew J. Barile, CPCU, CEO, of Andrew Barile Consulting Corporation, Inc., has over 40 years of experience in the Property Casualty Insurance and Reinsurance Industry. He is the co-founder of the first publicly held Bermuda reinsurer and is on the board of both domestic and offshore insurance companies. Mr. Barile has an MBA from Stern’s (NYU) business school, and has won the AngloAmerican Fellowship to study at Lloyd’s of London, with his thesis on the captive insurance company.

In a recent article, he writes,

“The versatile Insurance Industry Expert is being selected by insurance industry litigation law firms throughout the country. Since many cases involve millions of dollars of litigation exposure, it is important to have an experienced insurance industry expert who brings the element of persuasion and accuracy into the mix.

Insurance experts that have been retail insurance brokers, wholesale insurance brokers, excess and surplus lines insurance brokers, managing general agents, reinsurance intermediaries are very helpful in winning cases because they possess practical industry experience…”

Read More

AdvertisingConsultantsExpert WitnessMarketing

THE BUSINESS OF LAW

on September 12, 2012

Attorneys can be so overwhelmed with the practice of law that they lack time for the practice of business. Between consultations, research, writing, court time, hour-logging, etc., there is little or no time to number-crunch for the highest profit. Many large firms have in-house accountants to mind the books but, even then, the traditional practice of law can hinder a firm’s profitability. The perfect example exists in the Expert Witness arena. The legal industry has a tendency toward the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This is all well and good if, indeed, “it ain’t broke,” but the Expert Witness industry has changed drastically over the last 15 years.

Prior to the computer age, when information was hard to come by, the best way to procure an Expert was through a Broker. Broker’s compiled lists of Expert Witnesses and Curriculum Vitae otherwise unknown to attorneys. The Brokers would then, and still do, charge attorneys a fee to retain those Experts. The cost is usually a 30%-60% mark-up over the Experts’ hourly rates. Though some Brokers offer a brief vetting of Experts, it is not worth the severe mark-up and attorneys are still required to do their own due diligence.

Expert Witnesses No BrokerToday, with information readily available on the internet, there is no need for a Broker’s services. Established and well-respected website Directories have made public and free what was once private and costly. The very same Expert Witnesses are marketing their services with these online Directories and negotiating their own terms with no middle-man. According to Expert Witnesses, the most common dissatisfaction with Broker referral services is their ineffective means of collecting from their law firm clients. With the Experts in control, getting paid is getting easier.

The Expert Witnesses have it figured out. Why attorneys would pay exorbitant amounts for what they could get free of charge is baffling. It’s time for law firms to focus on the bottom line, fix what’s broken, and save thousands of dollars annually. Nothing else makes good business sense.

Consultants

When To Hire A Professional Consultant

on September 5, 2012

A professional Consultant is one who gives expert advice in specialized fields. A good number of consultants are top-level managers who have been with organizations for years and are able to trouble shoot issues that they have seen numerous times throughout their careers. Though the players are different, the contentions are mostly the same. It is just a matter of manipulating the knowledge that they already possess to benefit all of the parties. Though dispute resolution is the most common reason organizations hire outside assistance from Consultants, there are other situations when their services can be advantageous.

1.    Specialized Knowledge – The most successful organizations understand that they must hire in good advice when necessary. If an organization has a special circumstance outside the scope of it’s normal business, it may be necessary to “borrow the brains” of a Consultant. It is not rational to think that a decision maker has all of the answers. It is neither cost-effective nor efficient for members of an organization to learn a subject that a Consultant has already mastered.

2.    Disinterested Perspective – Consultants can serve as mediators or facilitators in outside and in-house disputes where bias would only divide the interested parties. Whether it be internal personnel issues or outside distrust, Consultants can concentrate the factions away from any encumberances that impede resolution.

3.    Fresh Perspective – Over time, some companies get caught up in the same line of thinking. Employee initiative gets stagnant and original solutions can be few and far between. Consultants have the benefit of visiting the same issues from many different organizational perspectives. Since they are continually solving the same general problems, Consultants have a vast arsenal of information with which to attack. For a short time, organizations can utilize this perspective to galvanize their work forces.

4.    Bad Guy – Businesses are often called upon to make difficult decisions. For some organizations, it is better that the delivery not come from within. For instance, a resistant board of directors may determine that an outside Consultant’s opinion to increase expenditures is more valuable than an employee’s opinion. At the end of the day, or assignment, the Consultant not only has the advantage of higher, more specialized knowledge, but can leave the organization with no lasting repercussions.

Professional Consultants can be an extremely effective tool for businesses in need of expertise. Whether for brain power, a new angle, as an impartial facilitator, or scapegoat, they can be thought of as a temporary means to a lasting solution.

1 2