Expert reports, depositions, trial testimony and rebuttal of opposing expert findings — engineered to survive cross-examination. Plain-language summary for the trier of fact; technical appendix for the opposing expert.
From the first affidavit to the last cross-examination. Every step is documented and reproducible.
Methodology, findings, exhibits and reproducibility appendix. Structured for Daubert and Frye scrutiny. Plain-language summary plus technical appendix for opposing experts.
Direct and cross examination. Prep sessions with retaining counsel. Hourly and per-diem rates available, scoped at engagement.
Independent review of opposing-side expert reports. We identify methodology gaps, tool misuse and conclusion overreach — and produce a rebuttal that withstands cross.
Non-testifying consultation for trial strategy, technical theory development and witness preparation. Hourly engagement, work product protected by privilege.
Timelines, maps, demonstratives and animated artifact reconstructions. Court-admissible visuals that translate forensic complexity into jury-comprehensible evidence.
Continuing Legal Education sessions for law firms — digital evidence handling, eDiscovery, mobile forensics overview. CLE credit-eligible in most jurisdictions.
Voir dire preparation, prep sessions with counsel and case-specific authority memoranda. Bundled with engagement at no additional charge.
Most digital forensic firms can do the work. Few build every report assuming it will be cross-examined. We do — because that is the standard a digital evidence report has to meet to be useful in court.
Methodology, tool validation and reproducibility are designed in from intake — not bolted on after a challenge. Plain-language summary for the trier of fact; technical appendix for the opposing expert.
What lawyers ask before retaining us as forensic experts in Canada and the US.
A judge has formally recognized the witness as an expert entitled to give opinion evidence under R. v. Mohan (Canada) or Daubert v. Merrell Dow (US). The court evaluates the expert's credentials, methodology and the necessity of expert opinion for the trier of fact.
CV available on request through counsel.
Through counsel. Standard flow: conflict check, engagement letter (signed by counsel, sometimes co-signed by client), CV exchange, retainer deposit. Once retained, we work under your direction — all communications privileged, all work product produced to counsel only.
For pre-engagement consultations ("is this matter worth taking on?"), we offer a one-hour scoped consult under privilege at no cost.
Fact witness: testifies to what they personally observed ("I saw the defendant log in at 11:42 pm"). Expert witness: offers opinion based on specialized knowledge applied to evidence ("the login at 11:42 pm matches the attack pattern based on these five technical indicators").
Fact witnesses describe observations; experts interpret them. The line matters because expert opinions require qualification under Mohan / Daubert; fact testimony does not.
Yes. We handle US engagements where cross-border qualification is required.
Same examiner team handles both Canadian and US trial dates where the matter is parallel-tracked.
A pre-trial motion by opposing counsel to exclude the expert's testimony, usually attacking methodology, qualifications, or whether the opinion is necessary (vs. within the trier's ordinary understanding).
Surviving the challenge requires: a peer-reviewable methodology, a known error rate, general acceptance in the field and an examiner whose CV holds up. Our reports are designed for this scrutiny from day one.
Three components.
Examination and report: hourly rate × hours, scoped at engagement and budgetable up front. Deposition / examination for discovery: half-day or full-day rate, plus prep time. Trial testimony: half-day or full-day rate plus prep and travel. We provide a budgetable scope at engagement and bill monthly with detailed time records.
Pre-engagement consult is free.
Yes. We review the opposing expert's report for methodology gaps, factual errors, unsupported assumptions and procedural deficiencies, then write a focused rebuttal identifying each issue with citations.
Rebuttal work is a frequent retention pattern — opposing counsel's expert produces a flawed report, we surgically pick it apart at deposition or trial. Many cases settle once the rebuttal lands.
