Experienced in-house attorney Hilary Fox and plaintiffs lawyer Nathan H. Bjerke have shared insight into the practice of following a strategic method to cross-examine an opponent’s expert witness. Even though the two professionals are on different sides of personal injury cases, they both advocate beginning your process with a well-drafted closing argument.
Fox, currently serving as an in-house attorney for Allstate in Minnesota, suggests being succinct and effective: “I think the key here is to pick your battles and be brief, be brilliant, and be gone. Just get in, get out. Don’t ask the one question too many.”
This approach allows a legal professional to go into the cross-examination having a clear direction and goal in mind. With this, they can ensure each question drives their argument forward and brings them closer to their intended narrative for closing.
Foregoing an unnecessary line of questioning not only prevents the risk of introducing conflicting or damaging evidence but also keeps the process focussed and efficient. This strategy, which Bjerke also applies in his practice at the TSR Injury Law firm in Minneapolis, can potentially be a game changer for lawyers, particularly in personal injury trials.
For additional details, see Law.com’s detailed report here.