A woman once told me that she made $300K/year as an "expert witness", on various topics. She was smart and she said she would study a bit and go testify. It blew my mind. I didn't understand whether she was working for the mafia, or if this was legal, or what. I said something like, "but, wait, you're not an expert. The court allows this?" She didn't understand my problem. She seemed entitled; despite her IQ she may not have understood what an actual expert was. I never got to the bottom of it and lost track of her.

The court does not want a deep guru on every topic. It effectively wants a bridge between a specialized domain and the court itself (which is made of lay people.)

I would expect an Expert to study on the particulars of a case. In general as long as they are sufficiently narrow I don't see a problem here.

If someone says they are an expert at nuclear engineering, I expect they can build a working reactor in their basement, not that they have read a pamphlet and might know the difference between fission and fusion.

Your critera excludes most of the NRC.

The court does not need to build a nuclear reactor. They need someone who can help the court understand nuclear.

Your theoretical person may be a bad choice if they have no communication skills.

They certainly are a bad choice if they are not actually an expert though

Let's be honest here: both sides of the case want "their" expert to testify. I.e., someone who has enough knowledge on the topic to push the given narrative convincingly. There is a massive difference between a court case and actual science.

I'd rather expect someone as a court-appointed expert that they have relevant, certified experience. In Germany, while judges are legally free to appoint whoever they want as experts unless there exist specially certified experts for the class of assessment[1], the parties involved usually present actual experts to the judge for selection - and the opposing side would challenge the selection of non-qualified experts.

[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__73.html

a reason for having specialized courts in specific domains of law instead of laymans in the 18th century enlightenment inspired (outdated) system we have. Also checks and balances on judges, one of the most unaccountable caste there is

> she may not have understood what an actual expert was.

There is a legal "standard" around the admissibility of expert testimony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard).

The person who got me to testify told me he made around $700 K per year. He drove a ~$200K Maybach so I had no reason to doubt him.

I also met a plaintiff's lawyer who told me, roughly, "If the lawsuit ever sees a jury, the jury never understands the science. It's all about likeability and looking good. I had a juror tell me, 'I picked your side because you had a really nice tie.' So, I always wear a nice tie!"

That was probably a hyperbolic story, but I'm sure there's a lot of truth to it, too.

Here are John Carmack and Tim Sweeney's takes on expert witnesses: https://mobile.twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/827187311452...

Yeah. This, and also the original post (the entire legal system) is based on this adversary system of incentives to demand you did nothing wrong and fight your opponent. It makes it hard to tell what's true.

What was the outcome? I hope the parents won

> What was the outcome?

My understanding is that it was messy. The parents/kid got some money. Maybe $1 - 1.5 million?? But my memory is hazy on that. Obviously, their parents' lawyer took some percentage of that.

I'm pretty sure the (parents') lawyer who hired me took on other plaintiff's lawyers as "investors" (I forget the proper term for what he did). Basically, he didn't have enough money to pay for everything up front [like expert witnesses], so he sold fractional "ownership" in his future earnings on the case in exchange for funds. This was a part of the business that I did not know existed prior to my testimony.

My suspicion is that he took away very little after the rest of us got paid (family, support staff, "investors", etc.).

My deposition was probably pretty typical, but it was shocking to me.

- The defense lawyers flew out to me and rented a conference room at a local law office.

- At around 9AM, the main defense lawyer sat across a table from me and pulled out stack after stack of documents and I thought, "Wow, she brought a lot of extra reading for herself. I should be done here by around 11 and I can go home and mow the lawn."

- NOPE! Every stack of documents was there to rebut some specific sentence that I wrote in my initial report.

- There were a lot of insults and efforts to get under my skin. For example, after I used some technical term, she said, "That's a big word. Do you really know what it means?"

- The only reason the deposition stopped was because she had to catch a flight back to the west coast around 5 PM.

- The kicker was that "MY" lawyer asked if I'd be willing to give them BOTH (plaintiff AND defense) a ride to the airport (defense lawyer said she'd pay me my rate for the ride).

- I told them I had to get home, but really I took the whole thing too personally because I thought, "You just insulted me for six-and-a-half hours? Now you want me to drive you to the airport? I'll pass."

- And then the lawyers took a taxi together like they were old friends.

Obviously, it's just business for them, but I'm not built for that.

Sounds like something out of Better Call Saul

That was interesting, thanks for sharing.