Check an expert’s credentials against the claim
For legal teams screening a specialist or evaluating a technical opinion.
How do you check an expert’s claimed experience without mistaking a strong résumé for support for a specific conclusion?
Run two separate checks. Verify what the person actually did or earned, then check whether the work they cite supports the particular conclusion they propose. Keep a source and a limit for each finding.
Check the identity and the scope of each credential
Copy the person’s precise claim into a worksheet. Record the issuing body, credential name, specialty, award and expiry dates if applicable, and what a current official record shows. For a publication, open the paper and check the author, affiliation and contribution. A shared surname or similar job title deserves a second identifier.
If an issuer’s public record is missing or ambiguous, record that result and ask for direct verification. Keep an individual credential separate from accreditation held by a laboratory or employer. Ask what work the person personally performed, how recently and under what supervision.
Follow a citation through to the underlying experiment
For each major proposition, request the exact study, page or result table the expert relied on. Note the population, sample conditions, outcome measured and any limitation the authors reported. Compare that column with the conditions in the proposed opinion. A study about detecting a category of event may say little about identifying the person who caused it.
Track answers as independently verified, reported by the candidate, contradicted by a source or open. If the source conflicts with the claim, show the expert the precise discrepancy and record their explanation. An official credential directory verifies only what the directory covers.
Reduce the opinion to a defensible scope
Ask which statements fall within the expert’s own experience, which depend on another specialty and which need further testing or records. For a federal proceeding, Rule 702 supplies a separate inquiry into qualification, helpfulness and the reliability of the method and its application. An impressive biography answers only part of that inquiry.
Worked example
Illustrative screening note. A consultant says they can date every alteration to a scanned image. The résumé lists a genuine imaging credential, but the cited experiment tested only one scanner model and one compression setting. Record the credential as verified if the issuer confirms it. List the claim about other scanners separately and ask for a study or a narrower proposed opinion.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This screening worksheet is part of the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. Agentic Attorney describes AI consulting and implementation for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.