Not in our case, anyway.
While we have occasionally been asked to comment on another consultant’s findings and methodology without having made noise tests of our own, this situation is very rare, and in our opinion, not the best way for us to serve our clients’ interests.
Testimony that relies entirely on criticism of an opposing expert’s data and conclusions leaves a judge to wonder why no alternative findings were presented. Were no tests done? Why not? Perhaps tests were indeed done, but the results were unfavorable? Has this "expert" even studied the specifics of the case at hand?
People hire Acoustilog to present solid data, produced with proper methodology and explained in clear language. It is what we are known for, and ultimately what will help decide the case in our clients’ favor.
Don’t worry, if there are flaws in the opposition’s argument or data, there is no one better to find them, and no one better to help a judge understand why such flaws are material to the issue at trial. But in our opinion "hired guns" often fire blanks in cases like this. Better to be armed with the best information you can get.
Please visit our Services for Attorneys page.
Back to Top