Credibility is a key attribute in a medical expert witness, every trial lawyer would agree. The medical expert must come across as experienced, well-informed, sincere, and believable. But how is this credibility determined when first seeking which experts to use on any given matter? What attributes provide the best predictors of how the expert will measure up in the eyes of a jury?
Conventional wisdom teaches lawyers to look for well-credentialed experts with degrees from prestigious schools, honors in their field and experience testifying. That wisdom carries kernels of truth, but it does not always make for a great expert. Credentials, although important, should not be at the top of his list. Most experienced trial lawyers would agree that credibility comes first and foremost from having an expert with substantial direct clinical experience in exactly the same problem as they are dealing with in the courtroom.
But hands-on experience and good credentials are only half the equation. The other trait that must be possessed by an expert is passion about his or her work. If they have an innate passion about what they do, that comes through in their ability to explain the issues to lay people on the jury who have no background in medicine, and probably don't care much about it. While telling the story, whether on direct or cross-examination, it should be obvious to everyone that the expert loves what he does, and that he has a natural interest and passion for discussing the correct practice of medicine, departures from that practice, and injuries that can result when standards are breached.
In cross-examination, a successful medical expert should be able to tell the attorney that he knows what he is talking about because he/she has done exactly that. The medical expert should appear very much like a physician, and should be very comfortable talking about patients and about medicine. Too much testimonial experience, and too little clinical activity can sometimes be a detriment during cross-examination because what comes through to the jury is the expert's courtroom experience, not his medical practice and his passion for the medical issues in the case. The jurors know that the spotlight is on medical experts when they take the stand. They look at medical expert witnesses thinking the same thing: Are these people credible, experienced, sincere, believable, and are they people who are going to help the attorney sort through the issues or not?
