LitigationPrep analyzes opposing expert testimony, maps Daubert vulnerabilities, and generates surgical cross-examination strategy before you set foot in the courtroom.
Normative sample mismatch. MMPI-2-RF validated on general psychiatric populations. Litigation context not controlled.
No validity testing for malingering. Report lacks SIMS, M-FAST, or embedded validity indicators.
"Permanent impairment" exceeds scope. Prognosis unsupported by peer-reviewed literature at this injury severity level.
Paste in the opposing expert's credentials and methodology summary. In seconds, LitigationPrep maps their Daubert exposure, identifies overreaching conclusions, flags missing validation steps, and generates the cross-examination questions designed to surface those weaknesses in front of a jury.
Built on deep knowledge of forensic psychology, neuropsychology, and psychiatric expert testimony standards: the categories attorneys most frequently face in civil and criminal litigation.
Generate EVRInput the opposing expert's report. Get a structured map of Daubert attack vectors, methodological gaps, credential weaknesses, and cross-examination strategy formatted for immediate courtroom use.
Practice your cross before court. Claude plays a cooperative or resistant expert witness. You run the cross, land your points, and receive an objective score on effectiveness and concision.
Generate a structured brief for your own expert to rebut the opposing testimony, covering the specific methodological failures your EVR identified in language experts can testify to directly.
Is the methodology testable, peer-reviewed, and generally accepted? We map every prong of the gatekeeping standard against the expert's actual methods.
Did the expert use performance validity tests and symptom validity tests? Failure to rule out malingering is one of the most damaging methodological gaps in civil and criminal cases.
Prognosis stated beyond what the data supports. Causation inferred where only correlation exists. Certainty language used for probabilistic findings.
Was the tool validated on a population that resembles this claimant? Litigation context, cultural factors, age, and education all affect standardized testing validity.
Is the expert opining within their actual area of specialization? What does their publication and practice record actually show?
Does the expert's opinion align with published science? We surface peer-reviewed findings that contradict the expert's conclusions.
Evaluate the platform. No credit card required.
For practitioners who regularly face expert testimony.
Multi-seat access for litigation teams.
ForensicPrep trains expert witnesses to defend their methodology. LitigationPrep trains you to dismantle it.
Generate your first EVR, free