Overview

How to Hire a Psychological Expert: Selecting, Interviewing, and Vetting

The right psychological expert strengthens your case. The wrong one can sink it — with irrelevant diagnoses, unsupported conclusions, or opinions that exceed the scope of what you asked for. This CLE course, taught by Dr. Jennifer Sweeton, gives you a systematic process for selecting, interviewing, and vetting psychological experts so you get the expert your case actually needs.

Defining Referral Questions

Everything starts with the referral question — and most attorneys get this wrong. Vague or poorly-defined referral questions lead to reports full of irrelevant or damaging content. You'll see real examples of what goes wrong when referral questions aren't specific enough, and learn how to write precise, well-defined questions that keep the expert focused on exactly what your case requires.

Selecting and Vetting Experts

You'll learn a structured vetting workflow that goes well beyond checking a CV. The course covers how to implement a comprehensive evaluation process that includes targeted interviews, reviewing redacted sample reports, and verifying credentials and qualifications — so you can confirm that a proposed expert has the right educational background, professional licensure, relevant training, courtroom testimony experience, and published scholarship for your specific case.

Targeted Interview Prompts

The course walks through a four-step interview framework: confirming domain alignment with your referral question, evaluating credentials and case relevance (forensic vs. clinical background, plaintiff vs. defense experience, Daubert challenge history, direct experience with PTSD, mTBI, malingering differentiation), assessing methodology and rigor (specific psychological tests used, malingering and response validity testing, differential diagnosis approach), and evaluating deliverables and report quality before you hire.

Reviewing Redacted Reports: The Good, the Bad, and the Nonsensical

This is where the course gets practical. You'll learn exactly what to look for — and what to run from — in an expert's redacted sample reports. The course covers specific red flags: bias, speculation, unsubstantiated conclusions, missing data, new information appearing in summary sections, expert opinions mixed into clinical interview sections, and conclusions that aren't supported by at least three independent sources. You'll review real examples of problematic report language so you can recognize these issues before they become your problem at trial.

Identifying Necessary Credentials

Not every doctorate is created equal, and not every "Dr." is actually licensed at the doctoral level. This section covers the specific credentials to verify — terminal degree, professional licensure in the relevant jurisdiction, specialized certifications, relevant training and hands-on experience, courtroom testimony track record, and published research — along with practical tips like always hiring doctoral-level experts, confirming the degree actually exists, and checking that the expert has worked both sides of the aisle.