Public policy expert witnesses may become relevant in many different cases, as public policy refers to various acts and decisions determined by government officials as a means of maintaining a sense of societal order. Public policy expert consulting may provide insightful information for cases involving such areas as public sector finance, government advisory services, medical ethics, alternative consumer finance, public health administration, economics and other financial matters, marketing research and surveys, and other issues concerning the public population, as each may be at the focus of a public policy lawsuit.
Since public policy often concerns various financial issues, many public policy experts have experience working with economic analysis, credit analysis, securities and investments, underwriting, debt, bonds, the Truth in Lending Act, and many areas pertaining to public finance. Other public policy experts may have a focus in policies pertaining to labor and employment, such as employment discrimination, business practices, forecasting, lost profits, performance appraisals, loss of earnings, wrongful termination, and other issues involved with labor law and business operations.
Public policy cases may also involve housing discrimination and other types of housing-related issues. Public policy experts also often have experience with environmental health and safety issues, including preventive medicine, infectious diseases, and other areas pertaining to public health.
For more than twenty years, attorneys have turned to ForensisGroup to be matched with highly qualified experts, making us a leader in the field. Call us today to learn more. You may also fill out and Submit An Expert Request Form to retain a reputable public policy expert witness for your case.
I have over 5 years experience in Political Science with expertise in Venezuelan Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Methodology, Authoritarianism, political regimes and redistribution, regime transitions and stability, politics under dictatorship, clientelism, and civil conflict. I have prior expert witness experience.
I have an experienced linguistics expert witness with over 35 years in the field. My expertise includes how human language works, the syntax and semantics of English, cross-linguistic and diachronic comparison of languages, the structure of words and sentences and how these relate to meaning, language in popular use and what this tells us about cultures and human cognition, and how the scientific study of language can elucidate matters of policy, particularly in the domain of trademark law and statutory interpretation. I have provided numerous clients with consultations, deposition, and courtroom testimony for more than 15 years as a linguistics expert witness.
I am an experienced investment analysis expert witness with more than 15 years in the field. I specialize in commercial and residential real estate, including risk management, due diligence, underwriting processes, construction, public policy research and analysis, market positioning, strategy recommendations, and financial and business and investment valuation analysis. I am offering my services as an investment analysis expert witness.
The Virginia Department of Elections brought a motion to exclude the testimony of a proposed election expert witness for the plaintiffs—three individuals and two voluntary associations affiliated with the Republican Party of Virginia. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act, which provides certain elected officials with the power to choose the method of nomination used to select their political party's nominee for office.The ExpertThe expert was a Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, and Law at the University of Southern California. Prior to joining USC, he taught at the University of Virginia for 10 years. His work focused on legislative politics and political parties and included more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed journals. The expert disclosure indicated that he would testify about the nomination process under state law and the Plan of Organization of the Virginia Republican Party, the structural advantages enjoyed by incumbent office holders, and the additional advantages conferred to incumbent officeholders.In forming his opinions related to this case, the expert relied heavily on rational choice institutionalism—a theory that posits that political outcomes are the product of preferences and institutions. Pursuant to this theory, the expert opined in his declaration that Virginia incumbents "have the ability to assess how they would perform under the different nomination methods and choose the one that they believe maximizes their chances of reelection." He stated that "the mere existence of the Act ... disadvantages challengers and benefits incumbents."Chief U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski wrote in his opinion that in the question of whether a witness is qualified to testify is “context-driven and can only be determined by the nature of the opinion he offers,” citing Fourth Circuit precedent.Defendants argued that the expert should be excluded because his testimony was irrelevant and wouldn’t be helpful to the trier of fact. They argued that he lacked the requisite familiarity with the state electoral procedures at issue and that his definition of a "closed primary" contradicted the definition employed by federal courts in controlling cases.In support of their first argument, Defendants argued that the expert's academic background on national politics was inapplicable to this case, and he didn’t review sufficient Virginia-specific materials in forming his opinions. Defendants argued that the expert attempted “to parlay his research and familiarity as an expert on national politics into an expert opinion on Virginia election procedures and state party dynamics.”Plaintiffs responded that the election expert's expertise in rational choice institutionalism allows him to opine as to how those general principles apply to the facts of this case. According to plaintiffs, "courts do not require narrower and narrower sub-specialization ... in order to admit expert testimony into evidence."Defendants also argued that the expert didn’t sufficiently prepare to form his opinions on the subject matter of this case, which further revealed his lack of familiarity with the state’s electoral system. In preparing, the expert reviewed state election law (including the Act), forms promulgated by the Department of Elections, and other Party documents related to the selection of nomination methods. According to Defendants, those materials didn’t provide enough background on which the expert could have reliably formed his opinions. They contended that the expert should’ve reviewed other specific materials.Rule 702The judge reviewed the expert's proposed testimony, his qualifications, and preparation. He concluded the elections expert was qualified under Rule 702. As Defendants recognized, the expert had "significant experience with national political science." His proposed testimony applied general principles of rational choice institutionalism to the electoral procedures at issue. His testimony showed his familiarity with the Act and the Plan, he said, along with the sources at the center of the controversy. Although the expert didn’t consider every bit of evidence that Defendants considered important, "one need not be precisely informed about all details of the issues raised or even have prior experience with the particular subject the testimony concerns," Judge Urbanski wrote, quoting an earlier Circuit decision. Consequently, the judge found that the expert possessed the requisite background as a political scientist and adequately reviewed case-specific materials to offer his proposed testimony on the election issues in the case.Defendant also argued that the expert used a definition of a "closed primary" that was more restrictive than the definition relied on in Supreme Court cases, and therefore, this portion of his testimony wasn’t relevant. Because the expert's view of what constitutes a closed primary was more restrictive than the descriptions used by federal courts, Defendants argued that such a disagreement requires the court to exclude his testimony as irrelevant. However, Judge Urbanski disagreed.Defendants cited no authority for the proposition they sought to establish—that expert testimony is irrelevant if the witness disagrees with federal courts' definition of a term that describes an electoral procedure. But even assuming the definition of a "closed primary" amounts to a legal conclusion, the judge held that the experts' testimony would be admissible because it would help the trier of fact in resolving this case. Any disagreement over the definition of terms went to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The expert' testimony about closed primaries wasn’t to be excluded.Finally, the conclusion to admit the expert's testimony was further bolstered by the fact that this case demanded a bench trial. The Daubert standards apply less stringently when the proposed expert testimony won’t be considered by a jury, the judge explained. While the lower Daubert standard wasn’t determinative here, Judge Urbanski said that it strengthened his conclusion that the testimony was admissible under Rule 702.
I have over 30 years experience in land use with expertise in planning, public policy, zoning, real estate, environmental regulatory programs, environmental permitting, land development, water use & quality, economic development, land use planning, and real estate consulting at local, state and federal government levels. I have provided numerous clients with consultations, deposition, and courtroom testimony for more than 25 years as a land use expert witness.
I have more than 30 years experience in finance and economic development with expertise in forensic economics, labor markets, workforce development, public policy, housing markets, and regional economic development. I have additional knowledge as an avionics technician, inspector and quality engineer. I have been providing consultations, deposition, and courtroom testimony for more than 10 years as an economist expert witness.
I have over 15 years experience in all facets of emergency medical services (EMS), public safety, and emergency management. I have a focus in higher education, emergency medical service management, emergency management and preparedness healthcare safety, and public safety. I have additional knowledge in disaster management and preparedness, risk evaluations and hazard assessments, and EMS Training and Education. I have prior experience as a medical emergency services (EMS) expert witness and have provided clients with consultations and deposition.
I have spent over 50 years working in Insurance Regulatory Matters with a focus in global regulatory standards, ComFrame, reinsurance standards, capital standards, life insurance regulation, property/casualty reinsurance, title, mortgage guaranty and financial guaranty. I have also offered my services for more than 50 years as an insurance regulatory matters expert witness by providing deposition, consultations, and courtroom testimony.
For more than 25 years, I have worked in Public Policy Analysis with expertise in economic policy, “for hire” transportation services, local economic development, the effect of local government policy on land and housing markets and small business activity. I am offering my services as a public policy analysis expert witness.
My career has spanned more than two decades in the field of urban and housing economics, social policy and education with expertise in urban economics, homeownership and housing markets, immigration and housing, gateway cities for immigrants, community development, affordable housing, public finance, poverty, social policy and social innovation, and education policy. I have additional experience on how changing demographics impact U.S. housing markets, how immigrants are integrating into housing markets across the U.S., the role of the economic cycle on household formation, and how older households make housing tenure decisions as they age, immigrant integration issues in spatial labor markets and in education. For over 15 years, my experience as a housing economics expert witness has included deposition, consultations, and courtroom testimony.
I have more than 25 years of experience in Public Sector Finance and Government Advisory Services, with multifaceted expertise in quantitative analysis, state and local government debt issuance and fiscal administration, rating agency municipal credit assessments, public policy analysis, underwriting and team management, market research, and portfolio surveillance. As a Director of Financial Services I have supervised a $1 billion portfolio of client holdings of municipal securities. I am now the Founder and Principal at a public sector consulting practice.
I have more than 20 years experience in the finance industry with specific expertise in alternative consumer finance. My experience includes payday loans / lending, pawnshops, Credit Services Organizations, and Credit Access Businesses. I am able to provide evaluations of storefront payday lenders, auto title lenders, and check cashers; sales; contract negotiation; policy recommendations; regulatory and legislative perspectives and risk factors. I have additional expertise in private debt investments, store operations, financial statement analysis, strategic growth initiatives, internal controls, CSO third party lending, CSO consultation, crisis communications and advocacy, public policy, third party coordination with state lobbying efforts, and financial journalism.
I have more than 40 years experience in Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Medical Ethics. My expertise includes areas of ethics in research, human research protections, biochemistry, and public policy. I have over 15 years expert witness experience.
I have over 30 years experience as a public health administrator with expertise in environmental health, public policy, preventative medicine, the treatment and prevention of AIDS/HIV, and other issues associated with public health. I have more than 15 years expert witness experience with consultations, deposition, and courtroom testimony.
I have over 25 years experience with economics, finance, and quantitative analysis, specializing in economic impact, efficiency, cost, and feasibility studies. I have designed economic models, strategic plans, and performance measures. My areas of expertise include economics of development, political economy, economic history, environmental economics, economic efficiency, public policy, performance measures, operational analysis, and economic modeling and forecasting. My consulting experience includes: personal injury, wrongful death, wrongful termination, housing discrimination, employment discrimination, economic loss, business valuations, lost profits, divorce, general economic and public finance issues. I have more than 20 years expert witness experience with consultations, deposition, and courtroom testimony.
I have more than 45 years experience in the field of economics with expertise in the laws. I have experience with industrial organization and antitrust; transactions cost economics; government and business; public choice; economics of advertising and safety; regulation and cost-benefit analysis; microeconomics; biological evolution and economics; and economics of privacy. I have over 25 years expert witness experience with consultation, deposition, and courtroom testimony.
I have more than 30 years experience in the field of Marketing Research and Surveys. My expertise includes marketing and public policy, marketing communication, product management, innovation and economic development, marketing strategy and planning, consumer behavior, research methods, and educational administration. I am highly familiar with topics of business administration, psychology and business, psychology and human development, consumer surveys, survey research methodology, branding, and consumer information processing, shopping behavior, and much more. I have over 30 years expert witness experience with consultations, deposition, and courtroom testimony.