Be More Expert Than Lawyer
The salient point of this podcast episode revolves around the intricate dynamics of expert witness testimony within the legal framework, particularly emphasizing the critical importance of an expert's impartiality and depth of knowledge. We delve into the complexities that plague the legal profession, including the pervasive issues of burnout, inner conflict, and the profound responsibilities that accompany the role of an expert witness. Our esteemed guest, Sean M. Weiss, shares his extensive experience and insights into the challenges faced by legal professionals, alongside the ethical implications inherent in expert testimony.
As we engage in thought-provoking discussions, we uncover the necessity for experts to maintain clarity, objectivity, and a commitment to truth, lest they compromise the very essence of justice. This episode serves as a profound exploration of the intersection of law, ethics, and personal integrity in the pursuit of equitable outcomes.
The podcast delves into the intricate intersection of law and the often unspoken aspects of the legal profession, addressing critical themes such as burnout, grief, and the inner conflicts faced by legal practitioners. We initiate the discourse by acknowledging that this is not merely another legal podcast; rather, it is an exploration of the profound emotional and psychological challenges that accompany the legal profession. The conversation is enriched by the participation of seasoned legal professionals who share their personal narratives from the front lines, offering listeners a rare glimpse into the realities that are seldom articulated in legal circles.
Through these stories, we unpack the necessity of sustaining a legal career characterized by clarity, purpose, and personal alignment, emphasizing the importance of strategic intuitive intelligence and inner awareness in navigating these tumultuous waters. The episode ultimately strives to foster a deeper understanding of the human elements that underpin the legal field, advocating for a more balanced approach to legal practice that prioritizes mental health and emotional well-being alongside professional excellence.
Takeaways:
- Legal L is a podcast that combines legal expertise with discussions on personal and professional challenges faced by lawyers.
- The episode features Sean M. Weiss, an expert in compliance and strategic litigation, sharing insights from his extensive experience.
- Listeners will gain an understanding of the complexities involved in expert witness testimony and the importance of context in legal proceedings.
- The discussion emphasizes the need for experts to remain objective and accurate, steering clear of becoming too intertwined with legal arguments.
- The podcast explores the often unspoken issues in the legal profession, including burnout and the emotional toll of legal work.
- Expert witnesses play a crucial role in shaping outcomes in legal cases, with their testimony potentially influencing the lives of individuals involved.
Links referenced in this episode:
Companies mentioned in this episode:
- Help Lawyer
- Doctors Management
- The Compliance Guy
Transcript
You've entered Legal L, where sharp legal minds meet.
Speaker A:The power of strategic intuitive intelligence and inner awareness.
Speaker A:Hosted by someone that is a veteran, an author, and is an individual experienced in specialist security operations, strategic intuitive intelligence and transformational psychology.
Speaker A:This is not your typical legal podcast.
Speaker A:We explore what most lawyers never say out loud.
Speaker A:Burnout, grief, inner dissonance and what it really takes to sustain a legal career with clarity, purpose and personal alignment.
Speaker A:Alongside powerful solo insights, you'll hear thought provoking conversations with members of the Help Lawyer network, Lawyers, legal support professionals and expert witnesses sharing real stories from the front lines.
Speaker A:This is the space where law meets what's rarely talked about.
Speaker A:Welcome to Legal Al.
Speaker A:Where wisdom meets the law and strategic intuitive intelligence guides the way.
Speaker B:Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker B:This is John.
Speaker B:This is Legal Oil podcast brought to you by Help Lawyer.
Speaker B:And today I'm excited.
Speaker B:I have got a fantastic guest, Sean M. Weiss.
Speaker B:As you can see his name down here on the screen, or if not, you're listening on the podcast.
Speaker B:Sean is the head of Doctors Management.
Speaker B:He is also the compliance guy.
Speaker B:He's got his own podcast, the Compliance Guy, which is stupidly, I didn't realize when we were chatting five minutes ago when he was just taking the mickey out of me.
Speaker B:I think it was because me being Scottish.
Speaker B:Anyway, Sean, welcome to Legal Oil.
Speaker B:I'm really excited about this because I came across you from an article that you wrote on expert witnesses.
Speaker B:And as you know, expert witnesses is something now that we are bringing into our legal network.
Speaker B:And I find it fascinating because there was one thing that you said in here that expert witnesses need to be more expert than lawyers.
Speaker B:And I want to get into that.
Speaker B:There's a few other tidbits, but please tell everybody a little bit about you, about Doctors Management, what you do.
Speaker B:You're a litigation expert and I think this is really important to everybody, you know.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:John, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker C:It's.
Speaker C:It's always a privilege to be able to come on somebody else's podcast and get to be the guest and not have to think about the questions that need to be asked or the direction that we're going to go.
Speaker C:And I just get to kind of open my mouth and see what words come out.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:So.
Speaker C:And, and I gotta be honest, this is the first time I'm having a Scotsman actually interview me.
Speaker C:So I'm having to.
Speaker C:I'm having to pay very close attention so that I make sure that I understand exactly what you're asking me.
Speaker C:So I don't give you an answer that maybe leads us into something that's inappropriate because I know how you.
Speaker C:I know how you.
Speaker C:Scott Sar.
Speaker C:All right, so actually, yeah, so, and, and listen, for anybody who's never made it to Scotland, you gotta go Scotland, Wales.
Speaker C:The, the whole area is just absolutely gorgeous.
Speaker C:The golf courses that are over there, the.
Speaker C:It's really fascinating.
Speaker C:People don't understand that, that all the golf courses over there are basically public, if you will.
Speaker C:And you know, when you're playing golf, you got to be very careful because a lot of people will come out there and they'll lay out a blanket and they'll have a picnic in the middle of the fairway and they wind up getting kiboshed on the top of the head and it turns into a little bit of a problem.
Speaker C:But anyways, thank you so much for having me on the podcast.
Speaker C:I greatly appreciate it.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:So I've been working in this industry now for 30 years.
Speaker C:I am the head of strategic litigation services and regulatory affairs for Doctors Management.
Speaker C:I am not the head of Doctors Management that I leave.
Speaker C:I leave the operations to other people who are much smarter than me in those areas.
Speaker C:But, yeah, I, I spend the majority of my time working on federal cases.
Speaker C:I do work on state cases as well, both civil and criminal.
Speaker C:I've served both as a consulting and as a testifying expert.
Speaker C:I've.
Speaker C:I've worked on probably more than 250 cases over my career and have testified in just over 50 cases as of the end of last year.
Speaker C:But I will tell you, it's.
Speaker C:It could be a daunting task, irrespective of whether you're working on the plaintiff slash prosecution side or you're working on the defense side, because the strategies aren't always the same.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:In one scenario where you're working for the prosecution or the plaintiffs, you're trying to prove a narrative.
Speaker C:You're trying to tell a story as to why the person on the other side is criminally negligent or why they are civilly, you know, civilly responsible for monetary penalties or whatever it is.
Speaker C:And from a defense perspective, you're trying to tell a story to discredit the other side.
Speaker C:You're trying to, you know, help paint a picture of, hey, just because there is a violation doesn't mean that the violation always rises to the level of criminality or, or the need to litigate something.
Speaker C:And I know prosecutors and plaintiffs love to listen to podcasts when I'm on there because they like to try to get sound bites to Use those against me in court.
Speaker C:And you know.
Speaker C:Oh, yeah, they do all the time.
Speaker B:And recently I come across that recently with another person that I know, actually one of my clients.
Speaker B:And yeah, they're utilizing his sound bites against them in a case.
Speaker B:It's like, wow.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:But what I always, what I always do, and this is, and anyone who's listening to this, especially if you're an expert who's testifying, if, if somebody plays a sound bite from a podcast that you're on, or they read a snippet from an article that you've written, ask them to provide you more context by going back and playing the prior three minutes of the interview or the next three minutes of the interview.
Speaker C:That way the jury could get the full context of what's being said.
Speaker B:And a lot of times when I, the context fails.
Speaker C:Yeah, and, and there are times, you know, I just had a case, gosh, I want to say it was the middle of last year where they actually played, they asked me a question and, and I answered the question, as I always do, honestly, early, to the point where they'll allow me to be thorough.
Speaker C:And, you know, they said, well, that's great, let's go ahead and enter plaintiffs or prosecutions, exhibit number blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker C:And they said, Mr. Weiss, this is a snippet from your podcast.
Speaker C:You know, they marked it and they played it and I kind of listened.
Speaker C:Now, keep in mind, my show has over 400 episodes.
Speaker B:You know, for you guys that listening there, go and check it out.
Speaker B:Compliance guy, podcast link will be in the show notes.
Speaker C:Yeah, so, you know, for me, it's, it's almost impossible to, to remember something that I said five years ago during season one, season two, you know?
Speaker C:You know, so I always say to them, they play it and I'm like, oh, I know where they're going with this.
Speaker C:And I always say, hey, I, I, I can't really answer your question right now, but if you could, for context to help me, could you please rewind it like three minutes and play?
Speaker C:Because I'll know exactly where they're going.
Speaker C:Or I'll say, could you please fast forward or could you please play the next three minutes again?
Speaker C:I need the context.
Speaker C:You're playing a 10 second, 15, 22nd, 32nd sound bite, and that's, that's not correct.
Speaker C:I need to be able to understand the context to the entire discussion.
Speaker C:You know, when you're an expert, irrespective of what side of the aisle you're on, you, you know, I tell people all the time being a testifying expert is like playing a game of chess.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker C:And you need to be able to anticipate, and you need to be able to be one to two moves ahead of your opponent.
Speaker C:And, and they are your opponent.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:Because they're trying to get the better of you.
Speaker C:And you're trying to be able to, you're trying to be able to give a narrative either on the prosecution side or on the defense side.
Speaker C:So I, I, I hope that made sense.
Speaker B:So there'll be people out there that maybe are thinking about becoming an expert witness or they don't understand what you're talking about as well as something do it.
Speaker C:No, I'm just kidding.
Speaker B:Is the dobert.
Speaker B:The dobert challenges.
Speaker B:Because it's exactly what you're talking about.
Speaker B:But that kind of, well, let's talk a little bit about what that is, because from even my research into that, it seems to be really kind of weak.
Speaker B:And again, based on that context.
Speaker B:Yeah, always take the context.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker C:So you, you have, you have rules for experts.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:I think it's Rule 702 or whatever it is.
Speaker C:So you, you have something called a Daubert motion.
Speaker C:And a Daubert basically means that one, one side, or both sides has made a determination that they're going to challenge the individuals that the other side is putting up as an expert.
Speaker C:I will tell you, I get Daubert motions now in every single case that they want to put me on episode.
Speaker B:So you could probably, Sean, you probably go like, yeah, okay, that's for us, episode 200.
Speaker B:So that's episode.
Speaker C:Yeah, I do, I get, I get, I get Daubert motions all the time when expert disclosures are being made to the courts.
Speaker C:And it's always interesting, especially when I have done a case for an attorney in the past, and now I'm on the other side.
Speaker C:And it's funny, because that attorney used me for almost an identical case, and now they're challenging my level of expertise because I'm on the other side and they, they don't want to have to deal with it.
Speaker C:But a Daubert motion basically says we, we are challenging the methodology, the knowledge, the competency, the scope of and breadth of knowledge of the person who's going to be rendering an opinion.
Speaker C:Sometimes they talk about the materiality of their testimony.
Speaker C:They talk about the relevance of the testimony.
Speaker C:Daubert motions are really, really hard to get judges to sign off on what you're, what, what attorneys are more likely to be successful in is filing motions of limine to suppress certain aspects of a expert's testimony where they believe it exceeds.
Speaker C:Like for me, you know, I, I, I get motions in limine where they say Mr. Weiss is not a physician, and as such, he, he should not be speaking about medical necessity because that's reserved for clinicians.
Speaker C:And sometimes, depending on the type of case, you know, the attorneys will say to me, well, Sean, how do you want us to respond?
Speaker C:And I'll say, nope, they're right.
Speaker C:I really don't want to get into the medical necessities, save that for the physicians that are on the case or the nurses or the nurse practitioners or whoever.
Speaker C:Other times where we know for a fact that medical necessity determinations were made by nonclinical people denying claims at the insurance companies or at the Q. I see.
Speaker C:We will push back and we will say in our, in our response to the motion in limine.
Speaker C:Here's, here's an excerpt from a OEI study, Office of Investigation and Evaluations for the Office of Inspector General, whereby they clearly indicate that they are using certified coders to make determinations on the appropriateness of the level of service that was billed or the validity of the procedure that was performed.
Speaker C:Which means what?
Speaker C:They are looking at the medical necessity.
Speaker C:They are looking at the clinical judgment of the provider.
Speaker C:And we will push back.
Speaker C:And we, we have been very successful on cases where we have responded accordingly with relevant, you know, citations using the government's own issued reports against them.
Speaker C:And that's why they try to suppress my, that's why they file these motions and they try to suppress my testimony because they, they know that I'm going to talk about specific cited resources that are published by the federal government where the prosecution looks at it and they go, crap, this is really going to create doubt in a juror's mind because they're going to say, wait a minute, we're accusing this guy or lady of something that the government has actually come out and said.
Speaker C:No, this is actually okay.
Speaker B:You know, it's, I want to go back to something that you said as well as you said that you're, sometimes you're on the defense, sometimes you're on the prosecution.
Speaker B:You're plaintiff.
Speaker B:Are you mainly plaintiff most of the time?
Speaker C:No, actually, 80, I would say 80 to 85% of the work that I do is on the defense side.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker B:So how do you kind of acquiesce that between, when you have, it's almost like a conflict.
Speaker B:And obviously, you know that people, because you're really experienced at this.
Speaker B:I mean, you're Top class, right?
Speaker B:Not that I'm trying to blow your trumpet or anything, but you are well moved.
Speaker C:I appreciate that.
Speaker C:Thank you.
Speaker C:If my wife were here, my wife would be rolling her eyes and going, oh, God, please don't say that.
Speaker B:So how do you deal with that, though, Sean?
Speaker B:Because that's interesting, because they know you, so they're working on one side, and then all of a sudden you're on the other side.
Speaker C:Yeah, you know, it's interesting because, you know, some people.
Speaker C:Some people have asked me, well, isn't that a conflict?
Speaker C:And I would say actually, it.
Speaker A:It.
Speaker C:It's really.
Speaker C:It's really a good thing because there are some people that do nothing but testify for the government.
Speaker C:There are some people that do nothing but testify for the defense, and I call them hired guns because some of these people are willing to say anything just to make a buck.
Speaker C:For me, as a compliance professional, as a compliance officer, as a regulatory officer, my job is to be independent and objective.
Speaker C:And for me, I have turned down as many cases on both sides as I have accepted.
Speaker C:Actually, I've turned down more cases on.
Speaker C:On one side than I have actually accepted for me.
Speaker C:And.
Speaker C:And you talk to a lot of the attorneys that I work with, and they will tell you they love the fact that I have worked on both sides.
Speaker C:They love the fact that I have consulted with members of the Office of the Inspector General, that I've worked with the heads of the Department of Justice, the heads of the Unified Program Integrity Contractors.
Speaker C:They love the fact that I've trained auditors for the Centers for Medicare or Medicaid Services.
Speaker C:So, you know, it shows a jury that I am truly objective and independent, that I am not a hired gun.
Speaker C:I am here working on one side or the other because I believe that I have something of value to provide to a jury, to either assist in the guilty verdict of an individual or leading to a settlement agreement, you know, midway through trial, after they've heard my testimony or read my reports or, you know, an acquittal for the defense, you know, after, you know, the prosecution has heard me testify or the plaintiff.
Speaker C:So, you know, for me, I actually, if I were.
Speaker C:If I were an attorney, I would want to find somebody who has worked on both sides because I'm getting somebody that has insights to both sides, an understanding of what it means to be impartial, independent and objective.
Speaker C:And.
Speaker C:And that's how I've all, you know, that's what I've always been.
Speaker C:And, you know, and I tell people all the time, I, you know, they Asked me a lot of times if I want to interview the subject of the criminal investigation or person who's being civilly charged or, you know, both sides.
Speaker C:And I will tell you, nine out of 10 times, I tell the, I tell the attorneys, I don't want to meet the person.
Speaker C:I don't want to be biased by getting a feeling for how they are, who they are.
Speaker C:I don't want to know their family dynamics.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:You know, I just want to look at the facts of the case, you know, and it's like that old show, if you remember, it's called Dragnet, where Officer Friday or Officer Sunday, whatever his name was, he.
Speaker C:He used to say, just the facts, ma'.
Speaker C:Am.
Speaker C:And that's what it is for me.
Speaker C:I just want to know the facts.
Speaker B:This brings me on something I loved on your article, actually, is you said the experts are too much lawyer, not enough expert.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:So this is, and I think that was really poignant point for you to see, because from what I've seen from other experts, is you obviously know a lot about the law as well, because you've had so much experience, you've been open to it, you've worked on both sides, so you're able to discern to a certain degree what there is.
Speaker B:But is there a real danger that these experts can become too much lawyer?
Speaker C:Absolutely.
Speaker C:You know, and that's actually, that's actually happened to me, and that's one of the reasons why I wrote about that in the article that you're, you're referring to an attorney who I've done many cases with over the last decade, who's become a good friend.
Speaker C:I was working on a very specific case, and I was trying to make a point about the opposite side, the attorney, and really what they were pushing as a narrative.
Speaker C:And in my expert disclosure, you know, I, I, and I've never done this, except maybe in the beginning of my career, you know, like, doing this kind of work.
Speaker C:Like 20 something years ago, I came very close to putting my toe over the line of being a lawyer by giving a legal opinion or drawing a legal conclusion.
Speaker C:And that's a very dangerous thing for.
Speaker B:Dude.
Speaker B:Yeah, you're crossing the line.
Speaker C:You are.
Speaker C:You're crossing the line.
Speaker C:And, and, and, and I was so grateful because the attorney wrote me back and he said, sean, you know this stuff.
Speaker C:I know you know this stuff.
Speaker C:We all know you know this stuff, but I need you to be more expert and less lawyer.
Speaker C:And, and, and I looked at that, and at first I was, like, kind of offended and Then I thought about it, and I was like, well, no, I'm not the lawyer.
Speaker C:I am.
Speaker C:I am the expert.
Speaker C:So, you know what?
Speaker C:I had to go back and I had to objectively read my report.
Speaker C:And I'll tell you, the other thing that really helps is I have an amazing team that support me in the litigation work that I do.
Speaker C:And, you know, they are always disclosed at the beginning so that, you know, if I need their insights and help, you know, they're listed as somebody who's working with me on the case.
Speaker C:But I have a couple of people that I'm able to send my thoughts to and say, hey, am I crossing the line here?
Speaker C:Am I, am I, am I making, you know, my.
Speaker C:A salient argument or salient point, or am I, am I missing the mark?
Speaker C:And for me, it's been a blessing because I have no, when it comes to people critiquing my work to make certain that I don't screw up.
Speaker C:I have no ego.
Speaker C:I have very thick skin.
Speaker C:And you have to.
Speaker C:Because we don't all know everything.
Speaker C:There's no one human being that knows everything.
Speaker C:Right?
Speaker B:And I get, as an expert, Sean, you've got a target on your back as well, because whether whatever side you're on, the opposite sides want to take you out.
Speaker C:They do.
Speaker C:They do.
Speaker C:And, and, and I'll tell you, I've.
Speaker C:Listen, I, I have been in some cases where I'm sitting in, I'm sitting on the witness stand, and I'm thinking to myself, why did I ever agree to take this case honestly?
Speaker C:Because sometimes, you know, I'll give you a great example.
Speaker C:I had a case the beginning of last year where for three hours, the opposing counsel did nothing but try to attack me personally.
Speaker C:It was personal attacks.
Speaker C:Why?
Speaker C:Why?
Speaker C:And, and, and, and I said to, you know, the attorney I was working with, I knew the answer, but I wanted to hear her response.
Speaker C:I said, three hours I've been on the stand.
Speaker C:We took a break, and I still wasn't done.
Speaker C:And, and, and I said, three hours.
Speaker C:They've not asked me one relevant question to the case.
Speaker C:Why?
Speaker C:She said, because they're trying to discredit you.
Speaker C:They're afraid of you, and they don't want to talk about the facts.
Speaker C:And she said, sean, we're getting to the point now where I'm about to engage and object and talk about the relevance of this.
Speaker C:And it was really interesting because.
Speaker C:And it's, it's in the transcript they, they actually brought, when we came back, one of the first questions they Asked was is your wife's name?
Speaker C:Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker C:And for me, that's crossing the line.
Speaker B:I'm shocked at that, actually.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:Because my wife works in healthcare as well.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker C:You know, and, and I did.
Speaker C:And I said, with all due respect, my wife has nothing to do with this case.
Speaker C:My wife has nothing to do with anything that I do in healthcare.
Speaker C:And you need to never allow my wife's name to come out of your mouth again.
Speaker C:Now the judge, you know, kind of just gave me a glance and you know, I, I said, I'm sorry, your honor, but you know, family should be off limits.
Speaker C:I mean, I'm an expert witness, you know, you, you know, I was qualified with specialized skills.
Speaker C:Anyways, long story short, the attorneys got into their sidebar with the judge and they handled it.
Speaker C:And I got an apology from the opposing counsel and they wound up asking me, I swear to you, after three hours of nonsense, they wound up asking me maybe a half a dozen questions regarding the case.
Speaker C:And they were like, no further questions.
Speaker B:See, that's crazy.
Speaker B:Where does the line, where does the line, where does it begin and end really, when you think about it?
Speaker B:Because it almost seems to me as well, Sean, that as an expert witness, yes, you're targeted, but you could almost feel like, wait a minute, did I commit this cr.
Speaker B:Is it me that's committed the crime?
Speaker C:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker C:I, I, I, I have sat there numerous times and thought to myself, good lord, all I'm trying to do is tell a story.
Speaker C:I'm just trying to tell a story based on facts, based on my knowledge, based on the methodologies that I used, either in statistical sampling or in review of the local coverage determinations, the national coverage determinations, the medical coverage policies, the contract guidelines, the whatever it is.
Speaker C:Excuse me.
Speaker C:And you know, I've, I do, I sit there sometimes and I think to myself, why am I here?
Speaker C:But you know, then I look over at the jury and I watch the jurors and I watch how they look at the person cross examining me and I watch their facial expressions.
Speaker C:And I will tell you sometimes, listen, I'm going to give your listeners the secret to being a great expert witness.
Speaker C:You ready?
Speaker B:My God, you're giving away the secret.
Speaker B:Sean, come on.
Speaker C:No, it's true.
Speaker B:Bring it on.
Speaker C:You know what it is?
Speaker B:What is it?
Speaker C:You've got to be an excellent storyteller.
Speaker B:I have got written on my little notes, talk to Sean about storytelling.
Speaker B:Because you mentioned that in the article.
Speaker B:And also what I notice is that you have and even listen to, you know, you, listening to you, it's clear that you are more interested in the jury than you actually are the judge or the lawyers, the attorneys, like.
Speaker B:So let's talk about that.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:And so in a jury case, who do the experts have to convince?
Speaker C:It's the jury.
Speaker B:It's the jury.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker C:So, you know, for me, I, I don't focus at all on the prosecution.
Speaker C:I don't focus at all on the defense.
Speaker C:When I'm being direct examined or cross examined now, I'll look at them and I'll get the, you know, I'll, I'll listen to the question, I'll look at them, but when I give my answer, I always turn and I say, thank you for that question.
Speaker C:Let me explain to you the way that the regulation is written, or let me explain to you what it means to work under generally accepted standards of statistics or generally accepted principles of accounting.
Speaker C:So for me, listen, being, being a good storyteller means that you're able to make eye contact with the jury.
Speaker C:You're able to identify those jurors that are actually interested because, listen, those 12 men and women that are in the box, the majority of them, they don't want to be there.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker C:They're missing out on, you know, family life.
Speaker C:They're missing, especially criminal trials that go weeks and weeks and weeks and months and whatever, you know.
Speaker C:So for me, I'm trying to connect with a juror or jurors so that, you know, I, if I'm on the defense side, I can put reasonable doubt into their mind as an expert by saying, listen, I understand that there was somebody who testified before me for the prosecution, but let me help you understand maybe where fatal flaws existed in their review, in their report, in their testimony that they gave.
Speaker C:And for me, I'm not here to make somebody look bad.
Speaker C:My job is to tell the truth, to do it accurately, to do it in a complete manner, and to do it in a way that resonates with the jurors.
Speaker C:I always want the jurors to have memorable soundbites from my testimony.
Speaker C:Not where I argued with the attorney doing cross examination.
Speaker C:Because remember, when you begin arguing and you start to lose your cool, that's what the opposing counsel wants.
Speaker C:They want to get you flustered, and you can't let you, because then they.
Speaker B:Can break you down.
Speaker B:And then you can use that element of stress and cognitive loads and just get right into you.
Speaker C:You're 100%.
Speaker C:So for me, I always remind myself, no matter how inflammatory the question is, no matter how disrespectful the attorney is during cross examination.
Speaker C:I'm there as a professional, I'm there as an expert.
Speaker C:And guess what?
Speaker C:I'm sitting on that stand because I was qualified as experts, a expert with specialized skills.
Speaker C:So you know what?
Speaker C:There's nothing that you can say to rattle me.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker C:And that's what I tell myself.
Speaker B:How do you end your storytelling though?
Speaker B:You've got a jury.
Speaker B:How do you bring that story?
Speaker B:Because you're potentially trying to tell that story to a jury.
Speaker B:That one has got no idea what you're talking about, has got no background.
Speaker B:And even though they may have been given case files and stuff, they don't understand it.
Speaker B:They're not physicians, they're not.
Speaker B:They're just average.
Speaker B:You on the street.
Speaker B:How do you build that story to get that little bit of doubt in their mind?
Speaker C:Such a great question.
Speaker C:I have always.
Speaker C:I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, okay?
Speaker C:So for me, I always try to take very complex issues and break them down to their foundation, to their basic elements.
Speaker C:And I always go into every single case reminding myself that these men and women that are sitting in that box, those 12 men and women, they don't know what I'm talking about and the majority of them don't care what I'm talking about.
Speaker C:But if I can find a way to inject some common sense and to inject a very basic understanding, then I can start to build a foundation.
Speaker C:And one of the things that I love to tell a jury is, listen, healthcare is a 27 headed monster.
Speaker C:Some of you may have experienced some of these same issues, right?
Speaker C:Where you go to a doctor and the doctor says you need X, Y and Z procedure or X, Y and Z medication.
Speaker C:And then all of a sudden your insurance company is denying it because either the drug is not formulary or they don't think the procedure is medically necessary.
Speaker C:And this is the frustration that providers have.
Speaker C:And they are constantly being challenged on their clinical judgment, on their decision making process.
Speaker C:So what you need to understand is when the government comes back and says to you that this doctor is committing fraud, ask yourself, why has the provider gone down the path that they have gone?
Speaker C:Is it because they took another path and they worked within the parameters that they were given by the insurance companies and the insurance companies turned it into a game and now the doctor's just trying to do what's right for the patient.
Speaker C:Listen, people tell me all the time.
Speaker B:Oh, they call dilemma, massive ethical dilemma.
Speaker C:Yeah, People, people say to me all the Time like yesterday, you know, I. I was flying home from Philadelphia and I was talking to somebody on the plane and they said to me, oh God, healthcare is just full of fraud, waste and abuse, isn't it?
Speaker C:Swear to God.
Speaker C:And I said to her, you know, it's really not.
Speaker C:I said, physicians, non physician practitioners, I would say, account for maybe 2% of the fraud in our industry.
Speaker C:The reason why you think it's so widespread is because these big companies enter into these massive settlements or, you know, every blue moon, you find a scheme or an artifice that's transpired where you have 100 people around the country that, you know, got into this marketing scheme to drive patients to genetic testing and they all got caught.
Speaker C:And it's $14 billion.
Speaker C:And everybody looks at and says, oh my God, fraud is so widespread.
Speaker C:Those are not.
Speaker C:Those are not normal situations.
Speaker C:I will tell you that in our industry, look, we're a $3.5 trillion industry.
Speaker C:The amount of money that the government recovers, they're just scratching the surface.
Speaker C:They really are.
Speaker C:Y. Yeah, but, you know, listen, there are bad actors.
Speaker C:There's no doubt about it.
Speaker C:But I would tell you that the bad actors are those, unfortunately, sometimes on or not sometimes, the majority of bad actors that I have run into in the cases that I work on are not physicians.
Speaker C:It's going operations.
Speaker C:It's those in the operations.
Speaker B:Because so many organizations, the insurance companies and the whole.
Speaker C:The put the insurance companies aside.
Speaker C:It's those middle managers, often at the integrated delivery health systems, that are driving the physicians, based on KPIs and different metrics and financials, to either do more procedures than they should, bill at higher levels of service than they should, whatever it is.
Speaker C:So, you know, physicians, you gotta remember in these hospitals and health systems, they're just employees now.
Speaker C:They can push back and many of them do, but sometimes, believe it or not, without their knowledge, their coding gets changed.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's true.
Speaker B:Do you know what?
Speaker B:I have a friend who's a.
Speaker B:He's a pulmonologist, he's retired now, but he was saying to me, I was talking to him about this as well, and I said, and I asked him if you ever did any expert witness work and stuff.
Speaker B:And we got anyway.
Speaker B:And he said one of the reasons that he was glad to retire, and he said he got to a point where he couldn't treat the patient because it just became a war of numbers and a war of codes and he was getting forced into the point where he had to have so much done to cover the Practice to cover that he was struggling, he was struggling so much.
Speaker B:To just find.
Speaker B:It is sad.
Speaker B:It is sad.
Speaker B:Now, where does that then become difficult for you when or, you know, when you're an expert and you're up on trial trying to defend these physicians?
Speaker B:There must be an ethical risk there as well from.
Speaker C:Well, that's the reason why I don't get personally involved with the clients.
Speaker C:Right.
Speaker C:So for me, I like to focus on what is it that the government did wrong, what is it that the other side did wrong, as opposed to trying to defend what this client did.
Speaker C:I, you know, look, yes, I want to tell them everything that the client did correctly.
Speaker C:But I'll never cross the line of embellishing or saying something that I can't back up with documentation and facts.
Speaker C:But for me, where we were, my clients prevail is by myself or the other experts that work with me in our firm is dismantling the testimony or dismantling the narrative of the prosecution.
Speaker C:And what I mean by that is, you know, investigators, auditors are bound by very specific guidelines.
Speaker C:We have something called the Medicare Program Integrity Manual, especially when we're talking about the federal payer programs like Medicare, Medicaid, now the VA, TriWest, they have their own guidelines and they're a little convoluted or a little difficult.
Speaker C:Commercial payers have their own guidelines.
Speaker C:Most of them follow what Medicare does.
Speaker C:But when we're talking about the majority of cases that I work on, they're Medicare cases, right?
Speaker C:They're federal payer cases.
Speaker C:So those that work, you know, for the Unified Program Integrity Contractors, the Office of Inspector General, the Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services, they are bound by very specific requirements, very specific rules under what's called the Medicare Program Integrity Manual.
Speaker C:And they are.
Speaker C:They have obligations to follow the process of conducting an audit step by step.
Speaker C:And for me, my job is to unpack what they've done, to start at the beginning and to say, okay, step number one requires them to do X.
Speaker C:Did they start with step number one?
Speaker C:And if they didn't, now we start to be able to say, well, here's the problem that I have as an investigator, as an auditor, as a regulatory compliance expert, excuse me.
Speaker C:They if you look at chapter three of the Medicare Program Integrity Manual, section three point, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, they were supposed to do the following, and especially if we get into a discussion about statistical sampling where they say a statistically valid random sample was performed and here's what was done.
Speaker C:Well, now I have an opportunity to go to chapter eight of the Program Integrity Manual.
Speaker C:And I can look at it and say, okay, chapter eight requires them to do the following.
Speaker C:You know, do we have the worksheets from the RAT Stat program or from, you know, Meditab or from sas?
Speaker C:Do we have a point estimate?
Speaker C:Do we have, you know, the confidence intervals?
Speaker C:Do we have a Monte Carlo simulation?
Speaker C:Do we have a A T test or a double blind sided S test or whatever needs to be done?
Speaker C:And that's how I dismantle.
Speaker C:There's a book that's on the shelf behind me.
Speaker C:If you see it.
Speaker C:It's.
Speaker B:It's USA Tried USA v Raj or v. Raj.
Speaker C:Yep.
Speaker C:And, and that's the Raj Bathra case.
Speaker C:And there's another case that I, there's another book back there that was written.
Speaker C:And these books were written by these doctors that were prosecuted and they wrote chap.
Speaker C:A chapter or a half a chapter about my testimony.
Speaker C:And you know, what I try to do is just give the facts.
Speaker C:And, and when the prosecutor says to me, well, Sean, you don't actually work for the government, that's when I know I have them because they, that's when I know.
Speaker B:So this, so they're, they're trying to get a weakness to say, well, you're not, you're not a government employee.
Speaker B:You don't work for the, you're private.
Speaker C:But see, now they, they can't do that now because why?
Speaker C:I've been appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Speaker C:I am now a special government employee who has been appointed to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Speaker C:So while I may not be a full time employee of the government, guess what?
Speaker C:I sit on the committee that actually writes policy, that advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services, that advises the administrator, the chief administrator of cms.
Speaker C:So now I have to be careful with how I say that because they say, well, are you here in a formal government capacity?
Speaker C:No, I am not.
Speaker C:But for years from.
Speaker B:This is him as a guest.
Speaker B:Go back three minutes.
Speaker C:Yeah, please go back three minutes so that you get the full context.
Speaker C:So Mr. Weiss, you said that you're an employee of the government.
Speaker C:No.
Speaker B:Let's talk about this on legal level on this day.
Speaker C:You did see this.
Speaker C:That's right, that's right.
Speaker C:That's right.
Speaker C:That's right.
Speaker C:Well, listen, you know, I think at the end of the day, being an expert witness is incredibly challenging.
Speaker C:It's incredibly stressful, but it's also incredibly rewarding.
Speaker B:I can imagine.
Speaker B:I was going to ask you about that because obviously I wanted to Bring in.
Speaker B:There's a point there, Sean, where.
Speaker B:Yeah, look, you're able to discern and you're able to shut down a level of emotion within this.
Speaker B:But there's gotta be some times where your emotion has to play a role.
Speaker C:I'll give you this one piece.
Speaker C:So again, I'll go back to USA v. Raj.
Speaker C:This was.
Speaker C:This was a.
Speaker C:This was my first half a billion dollar case, okay?
Speaker C:This was a $500 million case that the prosecutors brought against Dr. Raj Bathra and his partners at his practice.
Speaker C:And I never met Dr. Bothra.
Speaker C:I never met Dr. Lewis.
Speaker C:I never met any of the other doctors.
Speaker C:Now, I was not hired by Dr. Bothra.
Speaker C:I was hired by other physicians that were part of the trial, okay?
Speaker C:And it just so happened that my testimony specifically tied to the charges against Dr. Bothra.
Speaker C:And Dr. Bothra writes in his book about how when I got onto the stand after my direct examination, the prosecution couldn't even get started.
Speaker C:They couldn't get a cadence, they couldn't get a flow, because systematically I dismantled every argument that they brought up, and they never were able to get on track.
Speaker C:And I remember thinking to myself, there's.
Speaker B:A guy, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, that just look like 12 minutes ago, turned around and said, he wasn't the sharpest.
Speaker B:He was the sharpest knife in the box.
Speaker B:Come on.
Speaker C:No, listen.
Speaker C:But this is.
Speaker C:This is for me.
Speaker C:And I get very emotional about this case, right?
Speaker C:Be.
Speaker C:Be.
Speaker C:Be.
Speaker C:And here's the reason why.
Speaker C:So there were 54 counts against this position and the others, $500 million, approximately.
Speaker C:The level of bad faith on the part of those that worked for the.
Speaker C:On.
Speaker C:On the prosecution's case was just like nothing I've ever experienced or seen before.
Speaker C:And I remember thinking to myself, and I've never stuck around after my testimony.
Speaker C:I've always left because my job is to do my job and that's it.
Speaker C:And my hope and prayers are that for the things the physician or physicians have been indicted on or charged on, my testimony helps to acquit those.
Speaker C:If they were found guilty of something else that I had nothing to do with, I can't worry about that.
Speaker C:I can only worry about what I can do.
Speaker C:But I remember after my testimony, there were one or two others, I think, that went after me, and I stuck around.
Speaker C:And for whatever reason, I wanted to see the outcome of this case.
Speaker C:And this is a true story.
Speaker C:It's in the book.
Speaker C:They're actually making a picture.
Speaker C:They're making a major motion picture right now.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker B:Wow.
Speaker C:I was.
Speaker C:That's why I was in London in December.
Speaker C:They were filming the movie over there.
Speaker C:The premiere is going to be in Cannes in France in May, and then the premiere will be in India in July, and then in Detroit July of 26.
Speaker B:Wow.
Speaker B:That's phenomenal.
Speaker C:There's a.
Speaker C:So there's a part where I come back, you know, I come back in, you know, when the jury has reached her verdict, and I'm sitting there and they read the first count, and the jury said, we find the defendants not guilty.
Speaker C:And I just remember thinking to myself, wow, they're.
Speaker C:They're.
Speaker B:They're.
Speaker C:They're.
Speaker C:They're going to get acquitted of everything.
Speaker C:And sure enough, they got acquitted on all accounts.
Speaker C:And I just sat there and I. I remember watching Dr. Bothra hug his wife and hug his daughter, who were there for him throughout the entire trial.
Speaker C:And this was a huge trial.
Speaker C:And I remember.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:And I remember thinking to myself, Dr. Bothra, for those of you that don't know who this gentleman is, he was a consultant to Pope John Paul II of the Vatican.
Speaker B:He.
Speaker C:He is a.
Speaker C:An incredible philanthropist.
Speaker C:He adopted his daughter from Mother Teresa's orphanage.
Speaker C:This is a man who's just very.
Speaker B:Christ, like a saint.
Speaker C:So I remember thinking to myself, like, I got very emotional, and, you know.
Speaker B:I can understand why.
Speaker C:I can count on one hand how many times I've actually cried in my life.
Speaker C:I don't do that for whatever reason.
Speaker C:And Dr. Bothra, watching them walk by me, he saw me sitting.
Speaker C:And.
Speaker C:And.
Speaker C:And it's in the interview.
Speaker C:It's in the podcast.
Speaker C:It's in the interview.
Speaker C:It's in the movie.
Speaker C:He walked by me, and he saw me just sitting there, and I literally was just sitting there like this, you know, with my hands, you know, on my lap, folded, just looking straight ahead, no emotion.
Speaker C:And he came over, you know, his family walked out ahead of him.
Speaker C:He stopped, saw me there, came down the aisle where I was sitting, sat down next to me, put his hand on top of my hand, and I never looked at him because I was afraid to, but he.
Speaker C:He put his hand on top of my hand, and he just leaned over and he said, thank you.
Speaker C:And he got up and didn't say another word, and he walked out.
Speaker C:And I just remember sitting there thinking, to me, that meant more to me than any amount of money that could have been paid to me.
Speaker C:That meant more to me than anything.
Speaker C: as subjected to for more than: Speaker C:And this was a doctor at 78 years old that the government abused, put into jail during COVID refused to give him compassionate release.
Speaker C:His wife suffered a massive heart attack while he was in prison that caused her to suffer a massive stroke.
Speaker C:And they wouldn't tell him for a week until they knew that she was actually going to wake up from her coma.
Speaker C:And this man was subjected to things that no human should be subjected to.
Speaker C:And for him to be able to walk out of that prison and for me to have been able to go over to London to spend time with him, and it was such an honor.
Speaker C:I had no, I had no idea they were writing this book.
Speaker C:I had no idea they were making this movie.
Speaker C:And when Prashant, who is the executive producer of the movie, reached out to me with Dr. Bra and said, we're making a major motion picture and we'd love for you to come to London, spend time with the cast, which by the way, the cast is an all star cast.
Speaker C:It's unbelievable they got to play in this.
Speaker C:I mean, the guy playing Dr. Bothra was one of the lead villains in a James Bond movie, which was absolutely incredible.
Speaker C:Such an honor.
Speaker C:The wife of Dr. Bothra is royalty in India with her movies.
Speaker C:And you know, for me to just be there and you know, to meet the, to meet the, the composers, to meet the directors who were all Emmy award winners, I mean, these people won major awards.
Speaker C:But to, to just be asked to come over there with my wife so that we can spend time with them and, and break bread and share, you know, some laughs and actually, you know, share a couple of tears together.
Speaker B:That's phenomenal.
Speaker C:Was, was, was the most rewarding thing I've ever experienced in my 30 years.
Speaker C:It was one of the most humbling moments of my life to have somebody say to me, thank you for saving my life.
Speaker C:And you know what?
Speaker B:That highlights the point.
Speaker B:Anybody who's listening there and Sean and I were talking a little bit earlier on about screw ups that the expert.
Speaker B:We'll get into that in a minute.
Speaker B:Screw ups that expert witnesses do in any case.
Speaker B:But this, I think highlights the potential of expert witness testimony to be life saving, to change the direction of a case.
Speaker B:I mean, this is what you fight for.
Speaker B:This is what has given you that umph.
Speaker B:And I don't think there's probably a lot of experts out there look at it as well.
Speaker B:This is a way of me making extra money on the side.
Speaker B:This is a way of me doing this.
Speaker B:But you've just highlighted that we need to realize that expert witnesses, the expert testimony has possibly got, dare I say it, an element of life and death.
Speaker C:Yeah, no, you're 100% correct.
Speaker C:You know, all of the experts combined, you know, either make or break the case.
Speaker C:You know, it's not.
Speaker C:Listen, the.
Speaker C:Listen.
Speaker C:Attorneys do their job and they do it well.
Speaker C:And they are the ones that, you know, deserve to get all the credit.
Speaker C:I'm a guy who has always been in the background.
Speaker C:I love to be in the background.
Speaker C:I don't care for the limelight.
Speaker C:I don't care for accolades or things of that nature.
Speaker C:I really don't.
Speaker C:Anyone who really knows me will tell you that's not what matters to me.
Speaker C:What matters to me is justice, justice being served.
Speaker C:Whether somebody who truly is guilty is punished or whether somebody who is truly innocent is set free.
Speaker C:That's all that matters to me.
Speaker C:But I will tell you, this case, and people probably think I made a lot of money, like, you know, some experts do.
Speaker C:I made less money on this case than I've made on pretty much any other case that I've ever worked on.
Speaker C:And I worked on this case for hundreds of hours, probably, and look what came over.
Speaker C:I mean, and it wasn't about the money for me.
Speaker C:This was a case that was about.
Speaker C:In my heart of hearts, I knew these physicians weren't guilty.
Speaker C:And I knew that the people, unfortunately, working to put these people in prison for the rest of their lives.
Speaker C:Some of these people were bad hombres.
Speaker C:They were not good people.
Speaker C:And these are people that should have been prosecuted for, you know, lying, for, you know, just doing horrible things against humanity.
Speaker C:I mean, it just, it's.
Speaker C:It's inconceivable.
Speaker C:You should read the book.
Speaker C:I'm telling you, it's, it's.
Speaker C:It's.
Speaker B:I think I'm going to do that.
Speaker B:I'm going to get the name of the book, we'll link it in, the short notes and stuff like that.
Speaker B:But I'll definitely have a look at that.
Speaker B:That kind of brings me a bit to.
Speaker B:With the cases that you're on, how do you cope with a case that goes the wrong way and you say they were guilty, they should have gone down, or they were innocent, but they got convicted?
Speaker B:How do you deal with that when you've tried?
Speaker B:I mean, literally, you're very passionate about what you do.
Speaker B:You're systematically trying to break down the issues so that you can break down their argument.
Speaker B:But what happens when it fails?
Speaker C:So in December, I Just had a case that I came off of, a big federal case in Tennessee.
Speaker C:And you know, I was brought in on very specific counts regarding healthcare fraud.
Speaker C:And everything that I reviewed, everything that I independently evaluated, I testified to.
Speaker C:Of the 10 counts of fraud, four of the counts that I was asked to focus on, the doctor was they, they did not find him guilty on four of those 10 counts.
Speaker C:On six of the 10, they were tied to something else that happened.
Speaker C:And because they found him guilty of that, they also found him guilty of the six healthcare fraud violations.
Speaker C:I'm a very prideful person because I, I, when I take a case, I give 100% of myself.
Speaker C:I may have, I may have 20 cases going on, but that case, at that moment, for the month before trial, that's all I'm focused on.
Speaker C:And I'm doing everything to dispel the myths.
Speaker C:I'm doing everything to think about my positions and are my positions right.
Speaker C:You know, I go through multiple iterations of my reports to ensure that, you know, I'm, you know, removing the passion and I'm only focusing on the facts, that I'm not being an attorney, that I'm being an expert, that my citations are spot on, that I'm not embellishing, that I'm not misconstruing, that I'm not misleading the jury in any way, shape or form, that what I am giving them is source cited factual information that can be verified in court, justified.
Speaker C:That's right.
Speaker C:But you know, this last case bothered me because for the things that I was asked to represent this gentleman on, I knew he was not guilty of these things.
Speaker C:But the jury and I got to be careful of what I say because I know there's going to be a, there's going to be an appeal.
Speaker C:So I got to be very careful of what I'm saying.
Speaker C:But there was a significant amount of injustice against this physician in this case.
Speaker C:And that will all come to light on the appeal.
Speaker C:And I think on appeal, this doctor will win and he will walk away a free man.
Speaker C:It was, it was incredibly painful for me.
Speaker C:But, you know, it's like my wife said, she said, you know, Sean, listen, you're not going to win every single case that you're on.
Speaker C:And you know, sometimes, you know, no matter how much you prepare, no matter how good of a story you told, sometimes it could be another witness that, you know, hurt your story because there were inconsistencies in theirs.
Speaker C:And they thought if there were inconsistencies in that guy's story or that lady's story, then maybe there were in yours.
Speaker C:But in this case, here's the thing that was so crazy about this case.
Speaker C:My direct examination was 40 minutes.
Speaker C:Okay, maybe four.
Speaker C:Yeah, about 40 minutes.
Speaker C:The prosecution, on cross examination, 12 minutes.
Speaker C:They wanted nothing to do with me.
Speaker C:They.
Speaker C:They didn't.
Speaker C:They asked me.
Speaker C:They asked me a half a dozen questions that were personal questions.
Speaker C:And then I think they asked me four or five questions that were tied to the case.
Speaker C:And on the last question that the prosecutor asked me, I explained why I disagreed.
Speaker C:And I said, if you would allow me the courtesy of just explaining why I disagree with you.
Speaker C:And, you know, as.
Speaker C:As I was halfway through, she asked the judge for a sidebar to stop what I was saying.
Speaker C:And the judge said, absolutely not.
Speaker C:You opened the door, he's going to testify, basically.
Speaker C:And I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker C:I'm not.
Speaker C:I'm not quoting.
Speaker C:I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker C:And I wound up finishing what I was saying.
Speaker C:And she turned around and looked at the other prosecutor that was sitting at the table behind her, and she shook her head no and put her head down.
Speaker C:And she looked at me, and she's.
Speaker C:And she looked at the judge and said, no further questions, your honor.
Speaker C:And I literally sat back on the chair and I looked at the attorneys I was working for, and I shrugged my shoulders like, I've been up here for 12 minutes.
Speaker B:12 minutes.
Speaker C:This is a gentleman who's got 47 counts against him, and I'm here for 12 minutes.
Speaker C:And, you know, when I talked to the attorney afterwards, they said to me, they didn't want any part of you.
Speaker C:They, they, they.
Speaker C:They felt that they had him on these other counts, and that going too far.
Speaker B:You were, you, you were just subject to just.
Speaker B:They just wanted to get rid of you.
Speaker C:Then they wanted me off the stand.
Speaker C:And the guy, the guy who went after me, I happened to know him very, very well.
Speaker C:They had him on the stand for hours, and they just abused him.
Speaker C:And he called me and he goes, it is so unfair that you were off the stand in 12 minutes.
Speaker C:And I was beaten like a pinata for hours.
Speaker C:And I said, I don't know what to tell you, my friend.
Speaker C:You testified to the wrong stuff.
Speaker B:I can imagine what that would have been like in the pub when you're both having a dram and talking about it.
Speaker C:Right?
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:Imagine that conversation, John.
Speaker B:This I love.
Speaker B:We could go on and go on and go on.
Speaker B:I want to kind of, before we kind of tidy things up, I think it's important that and thanks for sharing everything, but we talked before, a little bit just before we started about the mistakes that the experts make.
Speaker B:And I get.
Speaker B:So let's go into that a little bit because you've obviously learned the hard way as well.
Speaker B:I mean, you've gone through, you know, you've had the good, you've had the bad, but you're on a case at the moment where things are.
Speaker B:Let's just talk a little bit about that and the mistakes that are being made by experts.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:So, you know, the one thing, and I'll leave you with this, the worst thing that an expert can do is step outside of their lane.
Speaker C:If you don't understand statistics and you don't understand rat stats and you don't understand the analysis and you don't understand how to arrive at a damage claim, don't do it.
Speaker C:Don't do it.
Speaker C:I'm working on a case where the work of the expert on the other side is almost embarrassing.
Speaker C:It is almost embarrassing.
Speaker B:Why do you say that?
Speaker B:Is it because their knowledge or the preparation?
Speaker C:Well, I can't tell you about their preparation, but what I can tell you is from what I read in their expert disclosure, if the other side does not file motions, a Daubert motion against this person, or maybe they don't, maybe they allow this person to get on the stand and then they impeach their testimony on the stand.
Speaker C:I don't know.
Speaker C:That's the strategy the lawyers have to figure out.
Speaker C:But what I can tell you is I did an analysis just very quickly of the expert disclosure, and they spoke in absolute.
Speaker C:They spoke in approximations.
Speaker C:Well, when you're using statistical analysis and you're making certain.
Speaker C:Certain findings, if you will, statements of fact, they have to be absolute.
Speaker C:You can't leave room for doubt.
Speaker C:And this individual just wrote in a way that it does not satisfy the rules of evidence.
Speaker C:It does not satisfy the rules of an expert.
Speaker C:I think this is one of the cases where if a Daubert was filed, I think the likelihood of this person would be extremely high.
Speaker C:But, you know, listen, being an expert is not like what you see on Law and Order, SVU or some of these other programs on tv.
Speaker C:Being an expert is incredibly stressful.
Speaker C:It is in.
Speaker C:It is incredibly heartbreaking at times.
Speaker C:It is incredibly rewarding at times.
Speaker C:But you can't go into being an expert thinking, I'm going to make a ton of money on this.
Speaker C:You go into it because you have a servant's heart.
Speaker C:You go into it because.
Speaker B:I love that.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker B:You want to do what's right.
Speaker C:Yeah, well, not just what's right.
Speaker C:You want to do what's accurate.
Speaker C:You want to do what is in the best interest of either the plaintiff, the prosecution, or the defendant.
Speaker C:And you have to take your emotions out of it.
Speaker C:You have to focus on the facts.
Speaker C:You have to research independently.
Speaker C:Don't use AI.
Speaker C:Don't use ChatGPT and think that you're going to be able to produce a report that is infallible because it's not.
Speaker C:These AI chatbots, they hallucinate, they produce incorrect information, they put out garbage.
Speaker C:And I'm telling you, if you're going to be an expert, dad Gummet, use your brain.
Speaker C:Use your own independent capabilities of research and writing so that when you're sitting on the stand and you're testifying to it, they're not going to say, well, wait a minute, you wrote about this and now you're saying that or how you speak doesn't match how you write.
Speaker B:I love that you brought this up, because as this is a new podcast from our network, I actually did talk about AI in the legal industry, and that's one of the things I said.
Speaker B:And I don't know if you know, you probably do know, but there was a report that came out from MIT about cognition and that people were getting thicker and people were.
Speaker B:And that's the problem is that they can't.
Speaker B:They don't know what they've written because they've not.
Speaker B:They haven't written it.
Speaker C:Well, here.
Speaker C:Here's the big problem.
Speaker C:And, and.
Speaker C:And I hope none of your listeners take offense to this, and if you do, well, I'm sorry, but here's the thing.
Speaker B:You can take offense because that's how they'll learn.
Speaker C:Yeah.
Speaker C:Here's the thing.
Speaker C:We're not.
Speaker C:We're not as smart as a species as we think we are.
Speaker C:We're really not.
Speaker C:I think.
Speaker C:I think.
Speaker C:I think, unfortunately, including myself, we're a lot of dummies out there, okay?
Speaker C:My wife will tell you I make mistake after mistake.
Speaker C:Listen, the moment I open my eyes and I take my first breath, my wife looks at me and she's waiting for an apology.
Speaker C:But here.
Speaker C:Here's what.
Speaker B:They probably know each other, but here's.
Speaker C:What I mean by that, right?
Speaker C:AI has made us even dumber because we are now relying on machines to think for us and to write for us and to tell us the things that we should be telling the machines.
Speaker C:You know, there was a movie a long.
Speaker C:A long time ago with Will Smith, the actor.
Speaker C:It was called iRobot.
Speaker C:And it was.
Speaker C:It was all about artificial intelligence and them thinking for themselves and learning.
Speaker C:I mean, look at.
Speaker C:Look at the latest movie from Tom Cruise, the Mission Impossible, the Final Reckoning, Dead Reckoning with the Entity.
Speaker C:I mean, this is.
Speaker B:We're.
Speaker C:We are there.
Speaker C:I mean, look at the lawsuits that are being filed against these chat bots that are, you know, telling kids not to listen to their parents.
Speaker C:And it's okay if you want to take your life.
Speaker C:I mean, we're stupid.
Speaker C:We're stupid to allow us.
Speaker B:Do you know what I see in the legal industry, which is heartbreaking?
Speaker B:I've seen so many ads now.
Speaker B:It's like, as a lawyer, use this AI app to do all your legal work.
Speaker B:Here I am sitting on a beach with my laptop doing all my legal work.
Speaker B:Where is the connection?
Speaker B:Where is the care?
Speaker B:Where is the courtesy?
Speaker B:I mean, really, that's not a good way to go.
Speaker C:No, it's not.
Speaker C:But hopefully the EU is working on, you know, a lot of regulations for artificial intelligence.
Speaker C:Our Congress is finally starting to pay attention, I think.
Speaker C:You know, listen, I'm not going to get into the political side of things, you know, with Trump and with some of these other folks, but, you know, Softel Bank, Oracle, all of you know, Metta, all of these companies.
Speaker C:Trump wanting to build these data centers to have, you know, to.
Speaker C:To.
Speaker C:To.
Speaker C:To.
Speaker C:You know, we.
Speaker C:We were in an arms race with Russia back in the 80s.
Speaker C:Now we're in an AI race against China and everybody else.
Speaker C:So my hope is that we can put pragmatic regulations in place to protect the American people.
Speaker C:But more importantly, universities, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, we start to push hard on the youth and of the adolescents today to say, hey, you've got to be an independent thinker.
Speaker C:You've got to do your own research, you've got to write your own papers, you've got to do your own math equation solving, you know, of these problems.
Speaker C:You know, this AI should be banned.
Speaker C:It should be banned from school.
Speaker C:And anyways, I'm going on a tangent.
Speaker C:I know we've gone.
Speaker B:Listen, I agree with you, Sean, because I can write.
Speaker B:You and I, we can write, right?
Speaker B:So you see the amount of young people I see now that can't even do cursive.
Speaker B:They can't write because they're on phones and they're on.
Speaker B:They can't.
Speaker B:They're losing cognition.
Speaker B:Sean, thank you for being a guest on Legal.
Speaker B:This has been absolutely phenomenal.
Speaker B:You're going to see this guy again because we've had a lot of fun in this.
Speaker B:A lot of seriousness, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker B:It's not easy to be an expert witness.
Speaker B:You've heard now today from one of the best, and if you've got any questions from them, please send it in.
Speaker B:But as he says, being a legal expert witness, expert testimony is potentially life and death.
Speaker B:It's a vacation.
Speaker B:If you're looking at it just for a way to make money, then you're looking at it the wrong way.
Speaker B:There's a right way and a wrong way to do things.
Speaker B:Sean, thank you so much for being with me today.
Speaker B:This has been absolutely phenomenal.
Speaker B:I hope to see you back on air and there'll be a lot more that you'll get from Sean.
Speaker B:Tell everybody how they can get in touch with you, especially physicians that really want you to fight their case for them.
Speaker B:Let them know.
Speaker C:Certainly, certainly.
Speaker C:You could go to www.thecomplianceguide.com.
Speaker C:you can put your inquiries in there.
Speaker C:If you're on LinkedIn, you can connect with me on LinkedIn.
Speaker C:I blog throughout the course of the week.
Speaker C:You can follow my podcast, the Compliance Guy.
Speaker C:John, thank you so much for having me on.
Speaker C:It's been a privilege.
Speaker C:I've had a lot of fun.
Speaker C:I hope I didn't overstep my bounds and I hope we get an opportunity to do this again in the future.
Speaker B:You'll be doing this again and no, you didn't.
Speaker B:This has been fantastic.
Speaker B:This is what I want, guys.
Speaker B:This is a legal ill.
Speaker B:If you're an expert and you're interested, you're interested in the side of things, get in touch with us.
Speaker B:Contact us as well on help-lawyer.com and we hope to see you soon.
Speaker B:But just be careful with what you're doing.
Speaker B:Remember, you're holding people's lives in your hands and their business and everything else with it.
Speaker B:This is Jon.
Speaker B:This is Help Lawyer, the Legal Owl.
Speaker B:God bless.
Speaker A:You've been listening to the Legal Owl, where law meets the unseen layers of clarity, leadership and inner alignment.
Speaker A:If this sparks something in you, trust that feeling.
Speaker A:Let it lead you for deeper insights, real conversation and strategic guidance.
Speaker A:Connect through the Help Lawyer network and subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker A:If you prefer a more private connection, you'll find the path when you're ready.
Speaker A:Until next time, stay present, think deeper and lead wiser.
