Have you researched the expert's seemingly impressive educational background? Check. Verified the claimed licensure and certifications? Check. Conducted a disclosure verification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) (comparing the expert's list of lawsuit involvement to independent data, such as dockets and verdict reports)? Check. Double-checked the expert's long list of authored works? Well . . .
A list of 56 authored works at the end of an expert's 10-page, detailed curriculum vitae (CV) is enough to cause almost any practitioner's eyes to glaze over. Yet, experienced litigators know that thoroughly researching an expert's claimed credentials oftentimes includes poring through that list with a critical eye, looking for exaggerations, lies, or omissions that could be used to discredit.
A brief caveat. The vast majority of experts have CVs that are beyond reproach, accurately reporting key components of their professional lives, including their authored works. Accordingly, in-depth research—which takes time and, consequently, costs money—may reveal nothing amiss. Nonetheless, on occasion, such research may reveal valuable information. And just one aspect of that research is double-checking the list of authored works, based on an understanding of the games some experts "play" with that list.