<i>Daubert </i>Tool Lets Lawyers Track History of Experts

Expert testimony can be the linchpin that makes or breaks a case. But lawyers have had a tougher time getting that testimony admitted since 1993, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in <i>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals</i> that scientific testimony must be not only relevant, but reliable. In 1999's <i>Kumho Tire v. Carmichael</i>, the Court extended that rule to all experts. This means that a lawyer preparing to qualify or challenge an expert at trial must answer a number of questions. What is the state of the case law under <i>Daubert</i>? How has the particular court or judge applied the rule? How have courts ruled on this type of expertise? Has this expert ever come before a judge?

5 minute read October 16, 2003 at 03:15 PM
By
Robert J. Ambrogi
<i>Daubert </i>Tool Lets Lawyers Track History of Experts

Expert testimony can be the linchpin that makes or breaks a case. But lawyers have had a tougher time getting that testimony admitted since 1993, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Daubert v.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026