LitigationPrep applies forensic psychology peer-review standards to the opposing expert's methodology -- the same analysis a credentialed forensic psychologist would perform -- and maps every vulnerability: Daubert exposure, validity gaps, scope overreach, and literature inconsistencies. Walk into deposition knowing exactly where their position collapses.
Built by a forensic psychologist who has spent 15 years on the witness stand.
The expert administered an instrument without addressing validity indicators, secondary gain context, or forensic interpretive cautions. You didn't catch it. Opposing counsel built three questions around it.
Your cross sounded strong in your head. On the stand, the expert had a prepared answer for every question because the line of attack was predictable.
There was a scope overreach in the report. You missed it. They didn't. It became the centerpiece of redirect.
One poorly constructed question let the expert reframe the narrative. The jury heard the reframe, not your argument. That moment decided the case.
LitigationPrep is where you find the exploit before opposing counsel builds a strategy around it.
"Doctor, the MMPI-3 normative sample is community-based, correct?"
Foundation. Establishes a fact the expert cannot deny.
"That is correct. The MMPI-3 normative sample was collected from the general population."
Commitment locked. The expert has confirmed the premise.
"And you did not address the validity indicators or secondary gain context in your interpretation, did you?"
Escalation. Turns the commitment into a methodology gap.
"I relied on the standard normative sample, which is the validated reference for the instrument."
Deflection attempt. But the gap is now on the record.
"So you are asking this jury to accept a personality assessment based on norms that do not account for the fact that this individual is in active litigation and has a financial incentive to present in a particular way?"
The concession the jury hears. The expert's methodology gap becomes the narrative.
LitigationPrep builds this sequence for you. The EVR identifies the methodology gap. The Model Question Outline sequences the questions. The simulator lets you practice the execution.
Find your exploit →Validity and secondary gain not addressed. MMPI-3 normative sample is community-based. Expert did not account for forensic interpretive cautions or secondary gain indicators in a litigation context.
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.
Most attorneys walk into expert cross knowing the general territory. LitigationPrep gives you the specific fracture lines: where the methodology breaks down, where the conclusions overreach the data, and what questions force the witness to say it in front of the jury.
Built on deep knowledge of forensic psychology, neuropsychology, and psychiatric expert testimony: the categories attorneys most frequently face in civil and criminal litigation.
Case-law grounded. Every report cross-references relevant federal case law via CourtListener: Daubert rulings, admissibility precedents, instrument-specific challenges.
Scenario-aligned. Attack vectors are calibrated to your proceeding type: personal injury, competency, custody, disability, criminal. Not generic.
Phase-aware simulation. The expert adapts as the session progresses. Early answers lock in positions. By late session the witness is defending prior testimony, not just answering questions. Sessions are saved and scored across six dimensions.
Upload their report or enter methodology manually
Daubert vulnerability mapping with severity scoring
Sequenced cross-examination questions for each weakness
Concession targets: the exact admission you need
Jury framing: how to explain it in plain language
Practice the cross in the simulator before court
Upload your own expert's report for defensive analysis
Anticipate every line of cross opposing counsel will pursue
Direct examination questions that address each flag on your terms
Recommended responses: what your expert practices saying
Supporting literature your expert can cite under oath
Practice defending the testimony in the simulator
Same extraction pipeline. Same de-identification. Same audit trail. The toggle on the EVR form changes the strategic lens: offense or defense. Both generated in seconds.
Try both modes freeWhen you upload a report, the document is de-identified through a three-pass pipeline before extraction. Evaluee names are stripped. Expert names are preserved. The methodology, tests, and opinions that reach the EVR are real forensic content, not synthetic scenarios. That is what makes the analysis actionable and the simulation realistic.
Upload the report. Get the vulnerability analysis before your next meeting. Run the cross in the simulator over lunch. Adjust your question sequence and run it again. This is designed for how attorneys actually work: under time pressure, iterating fast, refining strategy between depositions.
LitigationPrep is designed for use at attorney direction in anticipation of litigation. When used in that context, outputs may support work-product protection. Privilege determinations are fact-specific and jurisdiction-dependent. Apply your own professional judgment. The privilege page has details.
Every elite athlete spars before the fight. Every trial attorney should cross the expert before the courtroom. LitigationPrep puts a resistant, evasive, or cooperative expert on the stand and lets you run your cross until it holds up.
The expert adapts as the session progresses. Early answers lock in positions. By exchange eight, the witness is defending prior testimony, not just answering questions. The simulator flags openings, volunteers, and contradictions as they happen. End the session and receive a six-dimension cross-examination score with your strongest line, your biggest unexploited gap, and a single behavioral priority for next time.
Analyze the opposing expert's methodology for Daubert exposure, credential weaknesses, and cross-examination sequences. Every report includes a rebuttal brief outline for your own expert. Generated in seconds.
Upload your own expert's report. Anticipate every line of cross they will face, prepare direct examination that addresses each vulnerability on your terms, and give your expert the exact responses to practice before deposition.
Sparring before the courtroom. Claude plays the expert across three demeanor modes. The witness adapts phase by phase: foundation, pressure, late-session consistency. Real-time coaching flags openings and contradictions.
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.
Paste the opposing expert's credentials and methodology. The EVR maps every attack vector, scores vulnerability by category, and generates a sequenced cross-examination strategy in seconds. Or switch to retained expert mode: the same analysis prepares your own expert for the cross they will face, with direct examination questions and recommended responses.
Generate free EVR →See a sample report →The Founding Pro rate is deliberately below what this platform will cost at scale. It exists because the attorneys who build their practice around expert-witness strategy now should pay less than those who arrive later. It locks in permanently.
Evaluate the platform. No credit card required.
Early-access rate for founding members. Locks in permanently.
For litigation teams. Contact us to discuss your needs.
Every expert walks into the stand having rehearsed their testimony. LitigationPrep is how you find where it breaks before they do.
Expert Vulnerability Reports. Cross-examination practice. Rebuttal briefs. One platform.
Generate your first EVR, free