In this episode…

Today’s guest is Robert DeCicco, principal consultant and lead expert in digital forensic technology services and cybersecurity at Quint, LLC. He's an experienced expert witness in the digital technology space, and a sought-after lecturer. Mr. DeCicco holds a BS in mathematics and computer science from Penn State and numerous licenses and accreditations in his field.

According to Mr. DeCicco, ask your attorney before appearing in a new venue. Whether it’s cowboy boots in a Texas court or dressing up for New York, there are advantages to knowing the norms, rules, and procedures before stepping in for the first time.

Check out the entire episode for our discussion on neutral appointments, protecting yourself in engagement letters, and remote demeanor.

Want a masterclass in expert witnessing from someone who’s seen it all? Hydrogeologist Theresa Jehn-Dellaport joins us to unpack how technical experts can protect credibility, communicate complex science with clarity, and navigate high-pressure moments without losing the thread. From her first landfill siting testimony to water court battles and federal cases, Theresa shows how careful preparation and ethical backbone shape outcomes.

We dive into the first call playbook—what attorneys ask, what experts should ask in return, and the single red flag that ends an engagement: any request to ignore data. Theresa explains why credibility is a one-time currency and how to safeguard it across reports, social media, and public talks. She shares actionable deposition tactics, including pacing your answers, asking for breaks, and refusing to opine from flawed exhibits. Her approach centers on visual storytelling: GIS maps, groundwater animations, and simple demonstrations that bridge the gap between advanced modeling and lay understanding.

You’ll hear how venue differences—civil court, federal procedures, and Colorado’s water court with its referee process—change structure but not the essentials of good expert work. We also get into rebuttal strategy: how to evaluate opposing reports, concede valid points without losing your thesis, and frame disagreements in terms of data and methods. Underneath it all is a blueprint for strong attorney–expert relationships built on respect, clear roles, and independent judgment.

If you’re an expert curious about taking the stand, an attorney aiming to get the best from your experts, or a listener who loves the craft of clear communication, this conversation delivers practical, field-tested guidance. Subscribe, share with a colleague who needs it, and leave a review telling us your go-to tactic for keeping credibility front and center.

Want to know why the best experts rarely “win” a case—and why they still matter so much? We sit down with veteran estate and tax attorney and expert witness John Hartog to unpack the real value of expert testimony: confidence backed by facts, credibility that survives cross, and preparation that starts early enough to shape the entire strategy.

John traces his first expert assignment decades ago to what makes testimony persuasive now. We talk about the line between confidence and overconfidence, how an expert adjusts for a judge versus a jury, and why swagger reads as advocacy when a jury is listening. He explains why experts typically don’t decide outcomes—the facts do—but how a disciplined opinion can frame those facts so a fact finder sees them clearly. If you’ve ever waited until the eleventh hour to hire an expert, John spells out the hidden costs, from shaky disclosures to weakened confidence, and makes the case for bringing experts in early to guide discovery, strategy, and settlement leverage.

We go deep on credibility management: handling old articles and books that pop up on cross, distinguishing best practice from the standard of care, and staying consistent without being rigid when new facts or law emerge. John breaks down smart communication under differing discovery rules, especially in states where an expert’s entire file is discoverable. You’ll hear practical tactics—phone-first for substance, tight emails for logistics, screen sharing for drafts—and how federal versus state rules change report strategy. We also compare venues, from California courts to federal cases and even foreign jurisdictions that admit expert opinions on California law, and why local counsel should set guardrails when testifying elsewhere.

Across it all, one theme stands out: productive tension. Lawyers sharpen an expert’s opinion by challenging it; experts strengthen a case by flagging weak facts and untenable theories. That respectful friction is where durable, persuasive testimony is forged. If you work with experts—or are one—this conversation offers a clear roadmap for building opinions that hold up when it counts.

If you enjoyed the conversation, follow the show, share it with a colleague, and leave a quick review to help others find Engaging Experts.