The US Expert Toolkit
Seven working tools for US expert witnesses, built around Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Daubert line of cases and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They come with your listing in the Expert Witness Directory.
Expert work has a shape to it. Before you accept, you run a conflict check. Before you write, you ask whether the opinion will survive a Rule 702 challenge. Then you build the same report structure you built last time, check the disclosure against Rule 26, and at some point someone asks for ten years of publications and four years of testimony — and you assemble that list from scratch again.
None of it is difficult. It is simply slow, and it comes round every engagement. So we built tools that take the repetitive parts off your hands and leave you the part only you can do: the opinion itself.
Seven of them now. The newest, a Testimony & Deposition Log, deals with the one item on that list that cannot be reconstructed accurately after the fact — the four years of testimony Rule 26 asks for.
This page explains what each tool does. Members open them from the Exclusive Material page as soon as their listing goes live.
At a glance
Independence & Conflict Checker
Forty questions, and a summary you can hand to retaining counsel.
The twenty-minute call with the other side two years ago. The index fund holding you never thought about. The article from 2019 that says something slightly different. Most independence problems are not misconduct — they are facts nobody put on the table early enough.
The checker covers six areas: previous involvement in the matter, work for the parties and their counsel, financial interests and compensation, personal and professional relationships, previous opinions and testimony, and the conditions of the engagement itself. Answer Yes or Not sure and a box opens for the detail.
It does not tell you whether a conflict exists. That is a legal question turning on your jurisdiction and the facts, and it belongs with counsel. What the tool produces is an organised summary sorted by what to do next.
- Prompts covering side-switching, contingent fees, ownership interests and prior inconsistent opinions
- Flags anything marked unsure, so nothing is left half-answered
- A dated record that you ran the check, with space for the outcome agreed with counsel
- Downloads as a Word document to keep with your engagement letter
Rule 702 Expert Witness Check
An interactive review of the admissibility requirements, in plain language.
Rule 702 sets four requirements, and an opinion has to satisfy all of them: that your specialised knowledge will help the trier of fact, that the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the opinion reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The check walks you through each in turn, in ordinary language rather than rule-speak, so you can see where your opinion sits against the requirements before anyone else tests it.
It is worth knowing that Rule 702 was amended in December 2023. The amendment made explicit that the proponent must show the requirements are more likely than not satisfied, and reworded the fourth requirement to focus on whether the opinion itself reflects reliable application. Courts had been treating some of these questions as matters of weight for the jury rather than admissibility for the judge, and the amendment was aimed squarely at that.
- Each of the four requirements covered separately
- Plain-language prompts, with the rule reference for each
- Reflects the rule as amended, including the preponderance standard
- A quick review you can run before accepting or before finalising
Daubert Preparation Tool
Twenty-four questions that find the weak point before opposing counsel does.
A motion to exclude rarely turns on something the expert did not know. It turns on the point they knew was soft and never wrote down: the alternative cause they did not address, the method nobody has published on, the range of opinion in the field they never acknowledged.
The tool works through six areas — qualifications, helpfulness and fit, sufficiency of facts and data, reliable principles and methods, reliable application, and the challenges to expect. Each question has a plain-language prompt and a short hint explaining what a court looks for, and you rate how well you can answer it.
Anything rated Weak or Needs work is collected into a prioritised list at the end, so you finish with a plan rather than a feeling.
- One worksheet per opinion, because each can be challenged separately
- Prompts covering testability, peer review, error rates, standards and general acceptance
- A readiness summary showing where the foundation is thinnest
- Prints as a clean document for a preparation meeting with counsel
Expert Report Checklist
The points worth working through before the report leaves your desk.
Reports get into difficulty in predictable ways. The opinion that appears in the conclusions but never in the body. The data relied on that is described but never identified. The assumption supplied by counsel that is never labelled as an assumption. The alternative explanation that is never addressed at all.
The checklist covers the important points to consider when preparing an expert report, so you can work through it once the draft is written and catch the gaps while they are still cheap to fix.
It is a companion to the Daubert tool rather than a substitute. That one tests whether the opinion will hold up. This one tests whether the document says what you meant it to say.
- Structure, completeness and internal consistency
- Facts, data and assumptions, and whether each is identified as such
- Whether reasoning is shown rather than asserted
- A last pass before the report is served
Federal Rule 26 Expert Disclosure Checklist
What has to be disclosed — and what changes when there is no written report.
Rule 26(a)(2) sets out what must accompany an expert disclosure, and the requirements are specific. A written report must contain a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered, any exhibits, the witness’s qualifications including all publications from the previous ten years, a list of all other cases in which the witness testified at trial or by deposition in the previous four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid.
The checklist reflects those requirements item by item, so nothing is left out of a disclosure that later has to be supplemented or defended.
It also covers the separate position for witnesses who do not provide a written report — treating physicians and other non-retained experts, where the disclosure requirement is different and easy to get wrong because the fuller report requirements do not apply.
- Each item required in a written report, checked off individually
- The distinct requirements for witnesses not required to provide a report
- The ten-year publications window and the four-year testimony window
- The compensation statement, which experts routinely forget
Expert Witness Publications Tracker
Record each publication once. Produce the bibliography whenever it is asked for.
Rule 26 wants every publication you authored in the previous ten years. Retaining attorneys want much the same list when they are deciding whether to engage you at all. Most experts rebuild it from memory and a folder of PDFs, under time pressure, every single time.
The tracker replaces that with one record you add to as you publish. The form adapts to what you are recording, so a book does not ask for a volume number and a chapter asks for the book title and publisher.
Three controls then shape the output: chronological order, citation style, and whether to include everything or peer-reviewed work only. The bibliography rebuilds itself every time you change anything.
- Journal articles, books, chapters, conference papers, reports and more
- Author–date or numbered style; newest first, oldest first, or grouped by type
- A peer-reviewed-only filter, which is often all that is wanted
- Copy, print, or export a backup file to carry between computers
Smith, J. (2024). Weld corrosion in bridge supports. Journal of Forensic Engineering, 41(2), 118–134.
Okafor, N. & Smith, J. (2022). Error rates in metallurgical failure analysis. Annual Forensic Society Meeting, 44–51.
Smith, J. (2021). Giving evidence remotely. In Handbook of Expert Evidence (pp. 305–322). Routledge.
Testimony & Deposition Log
The four-year list Rule 26 asks for, kept as you go rather than rebuilt under deadline.
Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v) requires a written report to contain a list of all other cases in which, during the previous four years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition. Almost nobody keeps that list as they go, so it gets reconstructed from diaries and invoices the week a report is due — and it is rarely complete.
Record each appearance once and the list maintains itself. The four-year window rolls forward automatically, and you can set it to any disclosure date so the period is measured from the right day. Older appearances stay in your records but drop out of the list.
It also shows you something opposing counsel already knows: your plaintiff and defence split, and how much of your work comes from a single instructing firm. Those are standard lines in cross-examination, and it is far better to give the figure from memory than to be told it.
- Depositions, trials, hearings and arbitrations, each with court, case number and side
- A rolling four-year window measured from any date you choose
- Plaintiff and defence split, with a warning when one side dominates
- Downloads as a Word document, as a numbered list or a table
How they work
In your browser
Each tool is a page on this site. Nothing to install, no app, no separate account. Open it and start.
Your work stays yours
What you type is saved in your own browser so you can close the tab and come back. It is not sent to us and it is not stored on our servers. We cannot read it, and neither can anyone else.
Take the output with you
The tools produce something you can use elsewhere — a Word document, a printable PDF, a text file or a backup you can move to another computer.
Preparation aids, not advice
These tools organise your thinking and your paperwork. They are not legal advice, they do not check the substance of your work, and they do not replace your own judgment or the advice of retaining counsel.
Included with your listing
Join the Expert Witness Directory and the toolkit opens as soon as your listing goes live. A carefully selected selection of tools come with every membership; the Daubert Preparation Tool and the Rule 26 Disclosure Checklist are part of Platinum.
Join the DirectoryAlready a member? Sign in to open the tools
Questions
Is there an extra charge for the tools?
No. They come with membership. Five are available to every member, and two — the Daubert Preparation Tool and the Federal Rule 26 Disclosure Checklist — are part of Platinum membership.
Do you see what I type into them?
No. Your entries are held in your own browser and never reach our servers. That also means they do not follow you to another computer, which is why the tools that hold long-term records let you export a backup file.
Will these write my report or decide whether I have a conflict?
No, and they are built not to. The checklists test whether your document says what you meant it to say. The conflict checker produces a summary to take to counsel, not a ruling. The opinion and the judgment stay yours, which is the only way it could work.
Do they reflect the 2023 amendment to Rule 702?
Yes. The Rule 702 check is built around the rule as amended, including the point that the proponent must show each requirement is more likely than not satisfied, and the reworded fourth requirement focusing on whether the opinion reflects a reliable application of the methods to the facts.
Does the Testimony Log decide what counts as having testified?
No. It records what you tell it and keeps the four-year window accurate. Whether an affidavit, an arbitration or a deposition in a case that settled belongs on a particular disclosure is a judgment to make with retaining counsel, and standing orders sometimes ask for more than the rule does. We have set out where those edges lie in our guide to the Rule 26 testimony list. The log’s job is to make sure that when you come to decide, the entry is there to decide about.
Are these for federal cases only?
They are built around the Federal Rules, so they fit federal practice most closely. Many states follow a comparable standard, but some apply Frye or their own variant, and state procedural rules differ on disclosure. Check your own jurisdiction before relying on any of it.
Will there be more?
Yes. Members tell us which parts of expert work take the longest, and the next tools come from those replies — the Testimony & Deposition Log, the seventh, came from exactly that. If you have something in mind, tell us.
The tools described on this page are preparation aids for expert witnesses. They are not legal advice and do not create any professional relationship. Admissibility standards, procedural rules and professional obligations differ between federal and state courts and change over time. Always check the current rules and the orders in your case, and take advice from retaining counsel where appropriate.