-By Theodore Parker, III, Esq.

One of the best experts I’ve ever selected happens to be one of my mentors. More on that in a moment.

First, it’s imperative to say that not all cases require experts. In fact, sometimes they are a detriment. Quite often the facts of a case are simple and easy to understand and an expert’s opinion is not needed or justified.  Retaining an expert is practically a part of all young insurance defense attorneys’ “how to” manual or outline. Experts are retained to consult and educate counsel and offer opinions that lay witnesses couldn’t otherwise give. I learned early on that many jurors do not embrace experts. To the contrary, many jurors feel that experts are paid guns used as leverage or ammunition by a financially stronger litigant. Jurors have become more aware that in an auto accident trial, the defendant is being defended by an attorney retained by an insurance company. Many jurors feel that the insurance company can afford the expert and the expert will say whatever the insurance company pays him or her to say. Consequently, many jurors are not persuaded by an expert who wasn’t at the scene of the accident and therefore has no personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to the collision and/or alleged injuries.

In non-auto related cases, jurors are equally skeptical of experts. An expert should only be retained after considerable thought is given to the advantages and disadvantages of such retention. Will the expert assist the trier of fact as required by NRS 50.245? If the expert will assist the trier of fact, the next step focuses on selecting the right expert. I have had very qualified experts do well and not so well. Each case is different. You must consider the particular facts of the case when choosing the expert.

In a non-auto case tried over several months, I had the pleasure of working with an outstanding first or second time expert. This gentleman was professional in demeanor and enthusiastic about the science. He was inexperienced in handling cross examination but his undeniable honesty made up for it. In fact, years after the case was resolved, the trial judge commented on how well my expert performed. The trial judge, a former accomplished trial lawyer, was not only impressed with the expert’s credentials but also with his understanding of the case and connection with the jurors. I wouldn’t mention the Judge’s comments if I didn’t value highly the opinions of Judge Williams as a Judge and former trial lawyer.

While the above experience was good, it isn’t the focus of this article. I helped educate and train the expert in the case just referenced. The next expert I would like to discuss not only assisted the trier of fact but also me. I retained J. Mitchell (“Mitch”) Cobeaga, Esq., as my expert in a bad faith insurance case. Mitch was one of my mentors at Beckley Singleton. He trained many of the better trial lawyers practicing in Southern Nevada. He defended insurance companies and their insureds for over 35 years. I knew that he would not only be knowledgeable with regards to coverage but I also knew that he could explain coverage to a jury.

The particulars of insurance coverage is exciting only to a few people. Empaneling a jury

interested enough to listen and smart enough to understand would be challenging. I didn’t need a professional type. I needed an expert who would make listening and understanding insurance coverage, policies and claims language interesting or at least tolerable. I knew Mitch was perfect for my case.

Opposing counsel tried to preclude Mitch. When unsuccessful, opposing counsel tried to limit Mitch’s testimony. Because of his credentials and with his understanding of the case, Mitch was qualified to testify. Mitch with his easy-going approach entertained the jury. Between and among anecdotes and stories, the jurors learned the case and insurance coverage. In fact, when some of my questions seemed to esoteric, he rephrased the questions in his response. He assisted me and the jury simultaneously. The result was better than my client ever expected. Mitch’s contribution to the case was invaluable. I only take credit for selecting him as the expert.

Again, not every case requires an expert. When you have decided that the law and/or facts require an expert (i.e. medical malpractice case) be thoughtful in selecting the appropriate expert. If your theory can’t be articulated through the personal knowledge of lay witnesses, then an expert’s assistance is likely necessary. After you have determined the type of expert needed and have chosen the level of credentials suited for the case, then you must next consider the personality of the experts. Your expert’s ability to relate your theme of the case to the jury is extremely important in convincing a jury that your expert’s telling the truth and not what he/she was paid to say.

Theodore “Teddy” Parker is a founding partner of Parker & Nelson Assoc. in Las Vegas, Nev., where he specializes in administrative law, banking law, business litigation, corporate law and structuring, construction contract and defect, employment and labor law, insurance defense, municipal law, medical malpractice, personal injury, premises liability, products liability, real estate law, and regulatory compliance. Learn more about him and his practice’s work at http://www.pnalaw. net.