Psychologists as expert witnesses: Effective qualities from the attorney perspective

Twenty-nine attorneys in Southern California participated in a mail survey regarding psychologist expert witnesses they had retained or worked with and the qualities they observed in these experts. Those surveyed included criminal, civil, and family law attorneys. The major themes (qualities most frequently reported) for effective psychologists were Demeanor/appearance on stand/personal attributes, Preparation, Honesty/objectivity, Ability to work well with the attorney, and Communication skills. The data suggest Criminal, Civil and Family Law attorneys may value the same qualities in effective psychologist expert witnesses; however, looking at the frequency of the qualities reported, the data suggest there may be a difference between the importance they place on each quality. Demeanor/appearance on the stand/personal attributes and Preparation, were the two qualities most frequently reported by Civil and Family attorneys. The most valued (most frequently reported) qualities by Criminal attorneys were a psychologist's Ability to work well with the attorney and Preparation. The data suggest Criminal attorneys value Thorough testing and comprehensive reports more than Civil attorneys and Publications more than both Civil and Family law attorneys.; Results indicated that the mean number of psychologists retained by responding attorneys was 33. The data suggest that Criminal attorneys retain more psychologists than Civil and Family Law attorneys. The data suggest that the three psychological services most frequently requested by attorneys are evaluations of Mental state, Sentencing, and Emotional damages for civil cases. The data suggest the majority of Criminal attorneys retain psychological experts to conduct Sentencing and Mental state evaluations, the majority of Civil attorneys retain psychologists to assess Emotional damages, and that a majority of Family law attorneys retain psychologists to assess Family court issues and perform custody evaluations. The data also suggest Competency evaluations may be requested more often by Criminal attorneys than by Civil or Family Law attorneys.; Attorneys reported that a majority of psychology experts (M = 73%) had a positive impact in case outcome and a minority of psychology experts (M = 17%) had a negative impact in case outcome. The major themes (most frequently reported reasons) found for having a positive impact were Provide insight into client/accurate assessment, General positive impact in case outcomes, Helpful with pre-trial settlement/mitigated sentence, and Honesty/objectivity. The major themes (most frequently reported reasons) found for having a negative impact were Poor preparation, Inability to work well with the attorney, Not Honest/objective, Testified poorly/weak witness, and Poor communication skills. Attorneys also reported they do not use expert if testimony will not be helpful. A majority of responding attorneys (70%) reported that they would not hire a psychologist that had a negative impact in a case. The data suggest civil attorneys (88%) are more likely not to rehire a psychologist that had a negative impact as compared to criminal attorneys (63%) and family attorneys (33%).; The findings from the current research study provide psychologists with research data and tools to be more effective as expert witnesses and to provide better service to attorneys and their clients. If a psychologist adopts the qualities/characteristics identified, the data suggest attorneys' satisfaction with and view of this psychologist will be positive. He/she may be considered effective, credible, and/or persuasive.