 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
   |
 |
||||||||||
|
> Antitrust |
AEP often performs independent evaluations and due-diligence examinations of the opinions, analyses, and proffered support of other experts. The concern is that an expert can be myopic in his approach, or too wedded to the current analysis, and fail to consider other alternatives or explanations. The analysis can also have errors in computation and logic. AEP conducts a thorough examination of the expert's opinions and work, uncovers any errors, and makes suggestions to improve the opinions, support, or presentation of the expert's work. Are the expert's opinions sound, well thought-out, and based on reasonable evidence? Has the expert exceeded the boundaries of his discipline in reports, affidavits, or testimony? Does the expert's backup truly support the opinions articulated? Has the expert scientifically considered all the evidence, both pro and con? Has the expert missed the significance of certain evidence, or failed to consider alternative approaches or other explanations for the challenged conduct? Is the expert's theory of damages complete and intellectually sound, and is the calculation of damages accurate? Can the expert's opinions and work withstand a brutal cross-examination? In this manner,
both client and counsel can be confident that they have the highest
quality, most effective, and most dependable expert testimony possible. |
|||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||