In the pursuit of justice, attorneys naturally seek experts who will support their case. However, there’s a critical warning sign that often gets overlooked: an expert who works almost exclusively for either the plaintiff or the defense. If you see this pattern, it should flash like a neon sign for potential bias.

Why is this so problematic? Because consistent alignment with one side can subtly, or sometimes overtly, color an expert’s objectivity. I’ve personally witnessed what happens when an expert, deeply entrenched in one perspective (say, 99% plaintiff work), attempts to invent logic or stretch the standard of care to support shaky claims. While they might feel loyal to their consistent clients, this approach almost always leads to disaster under cross-examination.

Juries are far savvier than many realize. They can smell bias from a mile away. When an expert’s testimony appears tailored to fit a predetermined outcome rather than a neutral assessment of the facts, their credibility evaporates. This doesn’t just hurt the expert; it can severely damage your entire case.

A truly credible expert operates from a foundation of impartiality. This means they are individuals who have turned down cases from both sides when the facts or medical science didn’t align with their honest opinion. Their loyalty isn’t to a paycheck or a particular type of client; it’s to the standard of care and the scientific truth. They understand that their primary role is to educate the court, not to be a hired gun for one side.