Expert insights, legal technology trends, and best practices for working with expert witnesses
The expert disclosure rules of Virginia are comparatively lean and interrogatory driven, giving parties flexibility but requiring meaningful, case specific summaries rather than vague topic descriptions
Arizona tries to balance fairness and efficiency by requiring meaningful expert disclosure while leaving room for judicial discretion
The expert disclosure framework of Kentucky is practical and flexible, but comparatively less transparent than the federal model
New Mexico generally favors transparency while still preserving core litigation strategy protections as the rules permit substantial inquiry into the basis of expert opinions, compensation, and supporting data
The expert disclosure framework of Alabama is refreshingly minimal, focusing on the core substance of opinions
Alaska demands report-level disclosure of expert opinions and their bases—making detailed written disclosures effectively the norm.
Arkansas expert disclosure rules reflect a pragmatic effort to keep litigation efficient and accessible while representing a hybrid system gradually influenced by federal discovery principles
The Delaware expert disclosure framework is flexible in structure, largely shaped by judicial case management, and accompanied by rigorous scrutiny of expert admissibility.
Illinois takes a relatively structured approach to expert testimony, emphasizing clear disclosure and practical expertise
