The National Library of Medicine (“NLM”) is an excellent place to find materials in all areas of biomedicine and healthcare, including biomedical aspects of technology, the humanities, and the physical, life, and social sciences. According to its website, the NLM houses millions of items — including books, journals, technical reports, and manuscripts. Moreover, the website, along with its associated services (i.e. “PubMed” and “MedLine Plus”), contains links to medical encyclopedias, full-text news stories, articles, and free publications, as well as information on how to gain access to those materials.

In addition, every branch of medicine has its own professional association with an accompanying website, oftentimes offering article databases and membership directories. The website of the American Board of Medical Specialties is one of the best places to look for links to these associations.

Whether looking for information or potential experts, commercial websites can be powerful research platforms. For example, a recent search for “construction safety” at the Barnes and Noble website returned over one hundred results. The listing for each book includes a synopsis, the author’s name, a table of contents, a note from the publisher about the work, and, in many cases, reviews of it. In addition to books, the same search on Amazon’s website found manuals and reports written by potential experts. Textbooks on a particular subject can also be found on many websites, including bigwords.com.

Many legal portals provide access to articles by legal professionals that discuss expert witnesses. For example, law.com, the legal portal of American Lawyer Media (“ALM”), provides access to full-text articles from its various publications – but only to its subscribers (while also providing synopses of those articles for non-subscribers with the opportunity to view a limited number of them upon free registration).

The Index to Legal Periodicals & Book” (H.W. Wilson) and Legal Resources Index (electronic version of Current Law Index (Gale) are searchable electronic indexes of legal periodical articles containing information about experts. Most of the information consists of article citations from major law reviews, bar association journals and legal newspapers. These citations include an article's title, author, source, and subject headings. Various indexes to legal periodicals, along with the full text of articles, can be accessed from many library websites and commercial providers.

Articles written by experts about a particular subject matter may also be found through Google Scholar. This platform provides a way to broadly search for scholarly literature, including articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions. These documents have been collected from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other websites. Google Scholar may be searched with Boolean, proximity, and phrase searching, as well as through its advanced search function.

Finally, some expert witness directories such as the JurisPro Expert Witness Directory ( www.JurisPro.com) provide free access to articles written by experts on particular subjects, and many trade associations publish online newsletters – and some provide either the full text of or extracts from articles. For example, the Accident Reconstruction Communications (ARC) Network, a professional organization for those in the accident reconstruction industry, has a monthly newsletter with articles authored by experts. This website also has an active discussion forum which includes opinions posted by various accident reconstructionists.

In order to evaluate credentials, one must first verify the expert’s correct name – and the information provided on an Expert Witness Designation prepared by opposing counsel is not necessarily reliable for that purpose. Although opposing counsel isn’t likely to intentionally misspell an expert’s name (thereby making it harder to find background information) even a typographical error or uncertainty regarding a middle name or initial could cause one to spend hours searching in vain.

In addition, don’t overlook other information available through public records, such as where the expert has lived over the years. If an expert has moved around often, it could be an indication that the expert is trying to avoid licensing problems in a particular location (or locations) and, therefore, a more expansive research effort is warranted.

Once the expert’s name has been verified, his/her professional website should be carefully reviewed (if a search engine does not locate the expert’s website, try simply entering the expert’s name (or company name) as a dot com (e.g., expertname.com)). Many experts post their full CV, prior litigation experience, speaking engagements, references, memberships and professional affiliations, and authored works. Is anything embarrassing or contradictory on the website? Are there things missing from the website that might provide a lead to something interesting regarding the expert’s past? Does the expert proclaim that he/she is “the leader in the industry” or put forth similar bravado that could affect how the jury perceives him/her? When conducting such research, imagine how a jury would react if pages from the expert’s website were displayed as exhibits at trial – because they very well might be.

It may be possible to find older versions of an expert’s website that have since have been revised or even deleted. Archive.org’s Wayback Machine (also known as the “Internet Archive”) is a digital archive of the Open Web and other information on the Internet. One can utilize the Wayback Machine to access snapshots of billions of pages that have been saved since 1996. Although not every version of every website has been preserved, the Wayback Machine can be used to find inconsistencies between different versions of an expert’s website.

Several courts have expressly ruled that archived versions of a website obtained via the Wayback Machine are admissible. [27] Similarly, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed a lower court’s determination that an expert had testified falsely as to his credentials because a posting on a prior version of his website has been deleted prior to his deposition. [28] Although the Wayback Machine was not referenced in the opinion, it serves as a good illustration of how old versions of websites and information thereon are often never really erased.

When it comes to initial credential-gathering efforts, don’t stop with just the expert’s website; always go on to determine whether or not that expert has a listing in an expert (or other professional) directory. Such directories provide a wealth of information about experts, including (sometimes) a list of lawsuits on which the expert has worked (a “testimonial history”), and this information can be compared to what that expert has provided through formal discovery efforts (as well as at his/her website). Has the expert included embellished information in the directory in an attempt to better market his/her services? A comparison of the information provided by the expert with his/her directory listing might reveal such discrepancies.

Social networking websites are still among the largest areas of content growth on the Web. It is estimated that 81% of Americans have a social network profile (think: Facebook, Twitter, etc.), and almost two billion people use social networks worldwide. [29]

Social networking websites can be a boon to one who needs to obtain background information on experts. On these websites, a treasure trove of information about an expert can often be uncovered, including: professional background, employer, specialties, education, recommendations, publications, associations, contact information, and even a link to his/her website. Moreover, posts on such websites are often informal and quickly written. Participants in online social networks tend to share personal information freely in their profiles. It is often forgotten that the intended audience members (e.g., their online friends) are not necessarily the only people who can see it – depending on how users set up their privacy settings in their accounts, their profiles might be open to anyone.

Although one should feel free to troll publicly-available portions of those websites, avoid initiating requests to “friend” or “connect” with an expert, as some local bar associations and ethical guidelines restrict searching through information on the social networking websites of parties, potential jurors, and other participants in the judicialprocess.

Some experts fail to diligently update their CVs over time. Such a failure has caused at least one court to exclude an expert. [30] Accordingly, one should seek out all the CVs an expert has filed in prior lawsuits. Searching collections of court-filed documents as well as online docket databases (e.g. from LexisNexis CourtLink, Thomson Reuter’s CourtExpress, and Bloomberg Law) may yield such documents.

It may be possible to verify an expert's degree by calling the Registrar's Office of the appropriate college or university, but most of those institutions require a release and social security number before they will verify an individual’s attendance date and whether any degrees were conferred. Whereas this information is usually easy to get from an expert one has retained (via a release form included as part of the retention agreement), it is likely almost impossible to obtain from an opposing expert (though, if an opposing expert has nothing to hide, perhaps a refusal is not a foregone conclusion?). Another option is to use one of the several online services which allow one to verify attendance and conferment of a degree (or degrees). Although these online services will not cover every college and university in the United States, they often have a list of those that participate in their services.

The National Student Clearinghouse (“NSC”) appears to have developed the largest foothold in the arena of degree verification and, in fact, is the sole purveyor of degree-verification services for many major universities. Although no fee is associated with registration with the NSC (but formal registration is required), fees for actual verification efforts vary, depending on NSC’s contract with the school ($6.00 to $20.00+ per verification). Also note that, because the NSC is reliant on the individual institutions to deliver results, a lag time between the request and results may occur.

Another issue which has received a lot of publicity is the existence of “degree mills” – non-accredited colleges and universities that sell degrees (such as “life experience” degrees), primarily through the Open Web. [31] The State of Oregon has been very aggressive in combating these degree mills and offers a list of colleges and universities whose degrees are not acceptable for those seeking employment with the State. Several other states, including Michigan, now maintain similar lists. A little extra effort, often at a minimal cost, can help to either avoid retaining an expert whose credentials are invalid, or identify an opposing expert who does not have the background and training claimed on his/her CV.

A vast amount of licensing information can be found online and can be searched to verify the current status of a license an expert claims to hold. Many professional associations and organizations, such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) have their own websites where one can check the certification status of experts who assert that they are licensed or certified by those organizations. The American Board of Medical Specialties is the most authoritative place to verify the board certification of medical doctors.

SearchSystems (which is a pay website, though it represents itself, in some ways, as being free) provides access to thousands of public record databases. By running a search for the type of record (e.g. license or certification), the jurisdiction (e.g. Ohio), and the occupation (e.g. accountant), one can retrieve a list of databases where licensing information can be found. In fact, many certifying organizations either have an online listing of experts and their certifications or are willing to verify an expert’s certification(s) telephonically.

When reviewing licensing information or certification, be on the lookout for suspicious language. Words such “resigned,” “restricted” and the like should raise questions and prompt further investigation. Moreover, be sure to review the expiration date of the license or certification – it should be a matter of concern if the expert in question has failed to renew the license but represents that he/she is currently licensed. [32] Whereas a lapsed license may indicate that an expert once practiced in the area but has since moved to another location, words such as “suspended” or “surrendered” are often an indication of disciplinary action or a similar reason that caused the expert to surrender his/her license. Why that expert was forced to do so may be of extreme importance – to both oneself and one’s client.

Finally, be sure to verify even your own expert’s credentials – just because your expert says he/she is licensed or certified, one must double-check that information. Consider the VIOXX lawsuit in which the judge had to overturn a defense verdict and order a new trial when he discovered that the defense expert had misrepresented his credentials by testifying that he was currently certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease when, in fact, those certifications had recently lapsed. [33] Importantly, a relatively-easy search through certification information available at the American Board of Medical Specialties website would have revealed that inconsistency to defense counsel.

Nothing can be more discrediting to an expert than a reprimand or license revocation for (or even just an allegation of) professional misconduct, especially if the misconduct goes to his/her credibility – such as fraud or perjury. All state governments and some professional associations maintain records of professional misconduct, and these records are often available via the Web.

Currently, no reliable central repository of disciplinary actions against licensed professionals seems to exist. And because a myriad of possible state-operated websites exist, it is impractical to search them all individually. Accordingly, the best approach to take when pursuing researching possible disciplinary actions against experts is to first utilize public records to identify the expert’s current/prior residences and professional licenses. Once a list of licenses and residences has been compiled, it becomes easier to focus subsequent research on those states, professions and organizations with which the expert is affiliated.

Nonetheless, it is sometimes possible to do a national search for an expert's disciplinary history on an occupation-by-occupation basis. For instance, for disciplinary actions against medical doctors, one can search the Federation of State Medical Board's website. It should be noted, however, that some disciplinary actions are purged after a given period of time. So, for example, if the policy of the board or association in question is to remove records after ten years, the record of an expert who was disciplined in 2006 may not appear on a board's or association's website in 2017.

Finally, some expert-research services, such as LexisNexis’ Expert Research On-Demand (“EROD”; formerly known as IDEX), Thomson Reuter’s Expert Intelligence Reports and Expert Witness Profiler provide an effective means to gather and share information about expert witnesses, including disciplinary actions. These services do much of the legwork, tracking down disciplinary actions and sanctions information.

Many medical and technical experts write articles for journals (or are cited in articles written by others) – in fact, it is often because these individuals are published in journals that they are considered to be experts. So, when searching for background information on an expert, be sure to search through technical journals to determine what, if anything, can be retrieved with regard to that expert. However, when conducting such investigation, be aware of some of the shenanigans in which experts engage.

In terms of uncovering case-related information, the first step is to simply run the expert’s name through a database of case opinions, as they can sometimes prove fruitful when it comes to learning about an expert. For example, many court opinions that mention experts discuss excluding their testimony for one reason or another. If an expert's testimony has been excluded from a prior lawsuit, such information might be used to get that same expert's testimony excluded from one’s own lawsuit on the same or similar grounds (or might provide a caution as to retaining that expert for one’s own purposes). In fact, a search through opinions is precisely how the damaging prior rulings referenced in the Introduction to this White Paper were uncovered. [43]

Similarly, a search through opinions may reveal exaggerations about an expert’s claimed experience. For example, recently a court noted:

At the hearing, plaintiffs claimed that [the expert] had used IS-4 in numerous prior engagements, . . . but identified only one example[.] . . . Notably, that case was settled before [the expert] was ever qualified as an expert, and despite plaintiffs’ claim that [the expert’s] testimony “led to the [] settlement,” [the expert’s] qualifications do not appear to have been on the front of the court’s mind when it issued the Final Order and Judgment approving settlement[.] [44]

Of course, opinions can also reveal other useful information about an expert. Consider the opinion in which the court stated that “frequently, [the expert] did not answer questions as they were asked.” [45] Such a revelation might clue one into the fact that the expert in question tends to be evasive when testifying, thereby enabling preparation of an effective examination.

Do not forget to look internationally, as it is not that uncommon for an expert based in the United States to work on, and testify in, lawsuits in Canada (and vice-versa). Searching databases of Canadian case opinions simply makes good sense.

Several search techniques can be used to search opinions effectively. One option is to enter only the expert’s last name in the initial search (e.g. < flotz >), and then narrow down the retrieved set of results through the inclusion of additional variants (e.g. < dr or expert or sam! /5 flotz >). However, if the expert’s last name is more common, include his/her first name in the initial searches well (e.g. < dan! /3 johnson >). In almost all instances, do not include the expert’s middle name or middle initial (in case the expert does not use it or does not use it consistently).

In short, start the search broadly and then narrow your results later. Moreover, one can be cost-effective by searching multiple experts simultaneously and then using post-search filters and subsequent searches to extract information about each particular expert.

The Daubert Tracker creates reports (“Daubert Tracker Case Reports” or “DTCRs”) which summarize opinions addressing the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Each summary is put into a chart, that identifies the case name, the case number, the expert’s name, the expert’s area of expertise, the attorneys, the judge, a summary of the court’s decision (e.g. testimony inadmissible) and more.

These reports offer three significant advantages over a search through case opinions. First, an opinion that addresses the admissibility of expert testimony may not specifically mention the expert in question by name. DTCRs actually identify the name of the expert, even when the associated opinion does not. [46] This is a distinct and helpful feature.

Second, DTCRs cover more opinions than those typically available by online services. For instance, few state trial court opinions are currently available online, yet DTCRs cover some state trial court opinions. This means that a DTCR user is able to cast a wider, and different, net than when searching regular case opinions.

Third, the Daubert Tracker conducts name “verification”, identifying a misspelling of an expert’s name in an opinion, and correcting it in the DTCR. For example, toxicologist Alan Done is incorrectly identified as “Allen” in at least two case opinions, and “Allan” in another. [47] Daubert Tracker recognized that all three case opinions referred to the same toxicologist.

Daubert Tracker is available through its own website, and is licensed by publishers/organizations such as LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, TrialSmith and Courtroom Insight.

Electronic filing is utilized by most federal courts, [48] and a numerous state courts. Accordingly, accessing such electronic docketing systems can be a valuable way to glean even more information about an expert. In particular, armed with a list of lawsuits in which an expert has appeared, one can retrieve the docket sheet from each case and search it (online) for any references to the expert. Moreover, many recent docket sheet entries often have links to a PDF of each of the filings.

Unfortunately, two significant problems affect the use of most electronic docketing systems. First, one has to already have a list of lawsuits in which the expert has participated. So, if one does not have a list, or the expert in question has not been completely truthful in a provided disclosure, some information could be missed. Second, docket entries do not always specifically mention the expert by name, making it difficult to identify which documents truly relate to the expert (e.g. does that “Motion to Exclude” relate to the expert or to something/someone else?).

These problems, however, are not insurmountable. For instance, with respect to the first downside, commercial vendors are making more and more electronic dockets full-text searchable. For instance, LexisNexis CourtLink (via Lexis Advance) gives one the capability of searching through dockets of lawsuits filed in the federal courts (as well as various state courts), and some of those dockets go as far back as the mid-1980s. Thomson Reuter’s CourtExpress and Bloomberg Law offer similar services (though with more limited coverage). So by simply searching for the expert’s name, one might uncover a wide variety of information about him/her, including motions (e.g. “Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Smith”), orders (e.g. “Order Granting Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Smith”), expert reports, affidavits, declarations, CVs, etc. – and might even uncover lawsuits in which the expert has been involved, even if that expert failed to identify those lawsuits in a disclosure.

With respect to the second downside, several online legal services, such as LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg Law, and even the Daubert Tracker, offer full-text searchable databases of motions, pleadings and briefs filed in both federal and state court. Though none of these databases are comprehensive, they do enable one to search them in order to uncover court filings that mention the expert.

Such searching through electronic dockets can provide a powerful supplement to searching merely case opinions. For instance, recently the U.S. Tax Court issued an Order discussing how an expert had lied during cross-examination – but the Order does not mention the expert by name. [49] A search for that matter in the electronic docket system of the U.S. Tax Court, however, reveals that key detail.

Moreover, finding the brief filed in support of a motion in limine to exclude an expert can provide valuable information as to why an effort was made to exclude him/her. Was his/her background insufficient for the area of expertise he/she was addressing? Were there validity issues with the expert’s claimed background/education/licensing? Has the expert’s methodology been called into question? Finding even one or two of these briefs, motions or even opinions might give one direct insight into an expert or into someone else’s appraisal of him/her. For example, in a recent lawsuit, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion in limine to limit an expert’s testimony because, among other things, the expert relied on “an article from Wikipedia (which he testified as being an authoritative source) in formulating his opinions[.]” [50]

Verdict reports that mention a particular expert can be analyzed and possibly used to draw conclusions about him/her. For instance, after reviewing a number of verdict reports, one might uncover potential bias – perhaps the expert always seems to testify for plaintiffs or defendants, or the expert has testified for a particular party or attorney on numerous occasions.

Expert bias exists. For example, a telling study from many years ago of 492 X-rays used by plaintiff’s lawyers as a basis for asbestos claims showed that whereas X-ray readers hired by plaintiff’s lawyers found evidence of possible asbestos-related abnormalities in 95.9% of the X-rays, independent radiologists found evidence of possible asbestos-related abnormalities in only 4.5%. [52]

In addition, some of the details contained within a verdict report might lead to additional information about the expert. For instance, one could use the case name and number listed in a verdict report, along with the jurisdictional information, to track down that lawsuit’s docket in an attempt to uncover more information about the expert. Or, if the names of the attorneys are listed in the report, one might contact them to ask them for their impressions of the expert. In short, how one uses the information found online about an expert is only limited by one’s creativity.

Possible Sites: advance.lexis.com; westlaw.com; bna.com; www.morelaw.com ; verdictsearch.com; juryverdicts.com (listing numerous verdict report publishers); jvra.com (also note that many local bar associations provide access to state-specific collections)

An expert’s words, as expressed during the course of lawsuits (which can be found in a variety of formats, including transcripts, reports, affidavits and declarations), can be used in a variety of ways to discredit an expert.

Video of an expert’s testimony in court or at deposition can sometimes be found online (e.g. via YouTube, on the expert’s website, etc.). In fact, Yahoo and Google have added tabs to allow users to search for video. For example, running a video search for a computer forensic expert may retrieve extracts from video-taped depositions.