Steven S. Paul: An Automotive Lemon Law Expert Witness Interview

How do you avoid overwhelming non-expert readers with technical language?

The key to avoiding confusion is remembering who the audience is. Judges, attorneys, and jurors often do not have technical backgrounds, so I make it a priority to explain complex topics in a way that is clear, direct, and easy to follow.

When I use technical terms, I define them immediately in plain language. I avoid acronyms or industry shorthand unless they are absolutely necessary, and even then, I explain what they mean. I also use comparisons or simple examples to help make unfamiliar concepts more relatable.

Structure also matters. I organize my reports so that the facts come first, followed by explanations, and then the opinions. That way, the reader understands how I reached each conclusion. I also include timelines, bullet points, and labeled sections to guide the reader through the report without overwhelming them.

My goal is not to impress anyone with technical jargon. It is to communicate the truth in a way that supports the case and builds trust. If someone with no background in vehicle systems can understand my findings and follow my logic, then I have done my job well. Clear writing builds stronger testimony.

What role does reputation play in getting hired repeatedly as an expert witness?

Reputation is everything in expert witness work. Attorneys want someone they can trust to provide credible opinions and deliver them in a clear, professional, and reliable manner. The strongest referrals come from past clients who were satisfied with both the quality of the report and the working relationship.

A well-written report plays a major role in building that reputation. When a report is clear, defensible, and backed by evidence, it can help settle a case before it even reaches trial. That saves time and resources for the attorney and builds confidence in my work as an expert. Well-written content that holds up under scrutiny is often what sets expert witnesses apart.

Beyond the writing itself, attorneys also look for strong communication, responsiveness, and professionalism. Being easy to work with, meeting deadlines, and showing flexibility during complex or time-sensitive cases are just as important as the technical side.

A good reputation is not built overnight. It comes from consistent performance, clear communication, and reports that help move cases forward. When attorneys know they can count on me, they will return and refer others. That is the foundation of a lasting expert practice.

How does online visibility—like directories or profiles—help attorneys find you and evaluate your practice?

Online visibility frequently helps attorneys find and evaluate expert witnesses. I maintain both a dedicated business website and a separate expert witness site that focuses specifically on my litigation consulting services. In addition, I am listed on several expert witness directories to increase exposure across different regions and practice areas.

In each listing, I use consistent language to describe my experience, areas of expertise, and qualifications. I also include relevant background details, while being mindful of what information is appropriate to share publicly. Attorneys often look for specific experience, such as prior testimony, types of cases handled, or technical specialties. The more clearly and professionally this is presented, the easier it is for them to assess whether I am a good fit for their case.

It is also important to remember that opposing counsel can access these listings. Anything posted online may be brought into question during cross-examination. For that reason, I make sure all content is accurate, neutral, and professional.

Strong online visibility builds credibility, helps generate new referrals, and supports long-term success as an expert. It is a key part of running an expert practice in today’s legal environment.

Besides being an Experts.com member, do you self-promote your work and services (social media, newsletter subscriptions, website, etc.)?

Yes, I actively promote my expert witness services through several professional channels. I maintain both a business website and a dedicated expert witness website that outline my qualifications, services, and case experience. These sites serve as two central hubs for attorneys to evaluate my background and determine how I can support their case.

I also use LinkedIn to share insights, industry updates, and case-related highlights. In addition, I publish a newsletter to keep clients and legal professionals informed about service areas, availability, and recent developments.

To ensure that my messaging remains professional, neutral, and appropriate for both plaintiff and defense firms, I work with a professional writer. This allows me to present consistent, unbiased language across my website, social media posts, and directory listings. Everything is written with the understanding that opposing counsel may view it, so accuracy and neutrality are a top priority.

I also contribute to trade magazines and stay active in professional organizations within the automotive and vehicle inspection industries. These platforms help reinforce credibility and demonstrate ongoing involvement in my field.

Effective self-promotion is about professionalism, clarity, and trust—qualities that matter to attorneys on both sides of a case.

What makes an expert witness credible to a judge or jury?

Credibility comes from more than just experience or qualifications. To a judge or jury, a credible expert witness is someone who is honest, relatable, and able to explain complex topics in a way that makes sense.

First, I present myself as a real person, not just a technical expert. Even so, I follow rules of formality and etiquette. Judges and jurors need to feel that you are there to help them understand the subject matter, not to confuse or impress them. When I speak clearly, directly, and respectfully, I build trust.

Second, I use relatable examples. I often explain complex mechanical or structural issues by comparing them to everyday objects. For example, instead of diving into technical language about crumple zones, I might use the example of squeezing a water bottle. Once damaged, it never regains its original shape. These comparisons help jurors and judges connect with the material and remember the key points.

Ultimately, I earn credibility by being objective, prepared, and focused on helping the court understand the facts. When you teach rather than argue, and when your tone reflects professionalism and clarity, people listen and they trust what you have to say.

Have you ever had to revise a report after feedback that wasn't clear or persuasive enough? What did you learn?

Yes, and I believe that is a normal and important part of the expert witness process. Every expert should allow their attorney client to review a draft of the report before it is finalized. This ensures the report addresses the legal issues clearly and effectively supports the case strategy.

Revisions are often minor—such as improving clarity, refining wording, or expanding on a technical explanation. These adjustments do not change the opinion itself but help make the report easier to understand and more useful in court.

When I receive constructive feedback, I view it as a professional development opportunity. I do not keep notes on individual case report edits, but I do take mental or general academic notes on patterns and areas where I can improve my communication. This helps me sharpen my writing and anticipate what attorneys and courts need in future cases.

Being open to refinement is part of being a responsible and credible expert. The goal is to deliver reports that are fact-based, clearly written, and persuasive without being overstated. That level of precision benefits everyone involved.

Have lawyers told you that your writing samples played a role in selecting you as their expert witness?

While written samples are not always requested, I understand that they can play an important role in an attorney’s decision-making process. A well-written report helps demonstrate not only technical knowledge, but also the ability to explain complex issues clearly and professionally. It gives the attorney a preview of how I communicate, structure my findings, and support my opinions.

Even when samples are not requested, I treat every report as if it could be used as a deciding factor in future engagements. Strong writing reflects well on an expert and builds confidence with both new and returning clients. Ultimately, clear and defensible reports are part of what attorneys value when selecting an expert witness they can rely on in litigation.

What do you wish lawyers knew about working with expert witnesses?

One of the most important things I wish attorneys understood is the value of involving an expert early in the case. Too often, experts are brought in late in the process, after discovery is closed or when trial is approaching. At that point, options are limited, and time is working against the case.

Involving an expert early allows us to help determine whether the case has merit in the first place. We can assist in shaping strategy, identifying weak points, and uncovering strong facts that may not be obvious at first glance. Whether it is reviewing documents, advising on deposition questions, or helping evaluate a potential settlement, our insight can make a major impact long before testimony is needed.

Experts are not just report writers. We are subject matter professionals who can help dig through the technical details and find what really matters. That might be the key fact, the missing evidence, or the overlooked failure that can shift the direction of a case. Waiting too long to bring in that perspective can leave attorneys scrambling for help when the window is already closing.

The most effective attorney and expert relationships begin early and build a strong case from the ground up.

What information do you wish lawyers would give you when initially contacting you about a potential engagement?

When an attorney first reaches out about a potential engagement, it is important to provide clear and complete information, so I can accurately assess whether I am the right fit for the case and whether I have the time and resources to meet the deadlines.

The most helpful information includes a basic case timeline, the names of the parties involved, and any known due dates for reports, depositions, or court appearances. This allows me to review my schedule and confirm availability.

I also appreciate receiving the actual facts of the case, not just summaries based on what one party has claimed. Understanding what has been documented, such as service records, communications, inspections, or repair history, is critical to forming an objective opinion. Early access to those materials helps avoid unnecessary assumptions and allows for a more accurate and efficient review.

The clearer the picture at the beginning, the better I can serve the case. Having this information upfront sets the foundation for a productive working relationship and helps ensure that the expert report and any related testimony are based on verified facts, not incomplete or biased information.

As an expert witness, do you think there is a disconnect between the expert witness communities and attorneys and law firms?

Yes, I believe there can be a disconnect between expert witnesses and the legal community. Attorneys and law firms often look for experts at the last minute, while experts may not always understand the pressures and strategies that attorneys face in managing a case. This timing gap can make collaboration more difficult than it needs to be.

One way to bridge this gap is through more opportunities for direct interaction. Conventions, symposiums, and professional meetings that bring attorneys and experts together provide a valuable platform for both sides to learn from each other. When attorneys can hear directly from experts about technical processes, and experts can listen to attorneys explain courtroom needs and legal strategies, it creates mutual understanding.

Presentations, workshops, and joint panel discussions are especially effective. They allow both communities to build relationships outside of active cases and to develop a shared language that makes collaboration smoother when a case arises.

Ultimately, the more opportunities we create to bring attorneys and experts together, the stronger the working relationships will become. This benefits not only the professionals involved but also the clients and courts who rely on clear, credible, and effective expert testimony.

Have you built relationships with the attorneys and law firms you have worked with?

Yes, absolutely. I have built long-term relationships with several firms, some of which I have been working with for more than five years. The key to these relationships is trust and consistency. Both the attorney and the expert need to understand what to expect when a new case arises or when a case changes direction. Open communication that is direct, timely, and effective is essential to making that possible.

Another important factor is the support staff on both sides. A well-organized firm staff that can connect me quickly with the attorney when questions arise is invaluable. On my side, having staff who can prepare clear, quality questions for the attorney ensures that our communication is efficient and productive.

Strong relationships are not built on a single case. They are built over time by being reliable, responsive, and professional. When attorneys know they can depend on me for accurate reports, clear testimony, and open communication, they return for future engagements. In turn, I gain a deeper understanding of how each firm works, which helps me serve them more effectively.

Trust and communication are the foundation of long-term success in expert witness work.

What do you think most experts underestimate about being "discoverable" to attorneys?

I believe many experts underestimate just how much of their communication and documentation can become discoverable during litigation. I work with firms in multiple states, across different counties, and in federal court. Cases are sometimes moved or reassigned to new jurisdictions at the last minute, and each jurisdiction may have different standards for what is considered discoverable.

For that reason, I think it is wise for experts to ask the attorney early on about what will be considered discoverable and how the attorney prefers to handle communication during the case. This sets expectations and avoids problems later.

Personally, I err on the side of caution with everything I send. I am careful about what I put in emails, texts, and even invoices, because any of these may end up being reviewed in discovery. Keeping communications clear, professional, and limited to the facts is always the best approach.

The main point many experts overlook is that discovery is not limited to reports. Notes, drafts, billing, and informal communications can also be pulled into the record. Understanding that from the start, and working closely with the attorney to set boundaries, is essential to protecting credibility.

Tell us about a published piece of work that you're most proud of and why.

One of the strongest pieces of work I have authored was a federal report involving a trucking and transport company that was being sued by a leasing company. The case centered on allegations that the trucking company had failed to return vehicles on time and in the proper condition. I was retained as a defense expert witness to evaluate vehicle conditions and leasing standards.

The case required extensive review. I analyzed more than 25,000 pages of documentation and supervised the reinspection of more than 70 trucks. Through this work, I discovered that the leasing company had performed inspections improperly and had also held the vehicles too long before sending them to auction. As a result, the trucks entered a weaker market, and the leasing company attempted to charge the trucking company for the resulting loss of value. My analysis demonstrated that the loss was actually caused by the leasing company’s own practices.

I authored a 35-page report that detailed vehicle conditions at both the initial and re-inspections, documented improper inspection methods, and provided valuation comparisons tied to auction timing. The case ultimately settled in favor of the defendants prior to trial, which was a direct reflection of the strength and clarity of the report.

What are the top 3 skills an expert witness must have to succeed?

The top three skills an expert witness must have for success are professionalism, humility, and responsiveness.

First, you must approach expert work with a business mindset. Attorneys expect professionalism in everything from communication to billing, and your reputation depends on being reliable and organized.

Second, never let the title “expert” stop you from learning. Expertise is important, but the best experts are always expanding their knowledge and improving their skills. Staying open to new information, training, and feedback is what keeps you credible and effective.

Third, be attentive and responsive to attorneys. When an attorney calls or emails, it is for a reason, and timely communication is critical. Responsiveness builds trust and shows that you respect both their time and the demands of their case.

For professionals who are new to expert witnessing, my advice is to invest in your growth. Take courses, attend seminars, and focus on improving not just your technical knowledge, but also your writing and courtroom skills. Being an expert in your field does not automatically make you a strong witness. Success comes from combining subject matter expertise with the ability to communicate clearly, remain objective, and support the legal process.

What's the most valuable lesson you learned as an expert witness?

The most valuable lesson I have learned as an expert witness is to make sure I fully understand the case, the attorney’s goals, and how the case has developed before I begin drafting my report. Without that understanding, there is a risk of putting in unnecessary work or focusing on issues that do not align with the legal strategy.

Early in my career, I made the mistake of writing an overly detailed report without first confirming what the attorney needed to achieve in the case. I invested many hours analyzing every possible angle, but the attorney’s objective required a much more direct and focused approach. That experience taught me that communication is just as important as technical knowledge.

Another lesson I have learned is knowing when to tell an attorney that they may not have a case. Sometimes the evidence simply does not support the claims being made. While those conversations can be difficult, they are essential. Being direct in those moments allows the attorney to reconsider their strategy and demonstrates that I am committed to objectivity, not just providing the answer they want to hear.

This type of honest and clear communication builds long-term trust and strengthens professional relationships.

What changes would you like to see in the expert witness industry?

One important change I would like to see is attorneys involving experts earlier in the process on both sides of a case. Too often, experts are brought in late, sometimes after discovery is nearly complete or deadlines are already set. This limits the ability of the expert to provide meaningful input and can make it harder to develop a clear, well-supported opinion.

When experts are engaged earlier, they can assist with the discovery process by identifying what evidence is most relevant and what records or data will be necessary for a thorough analysis. Having access to the proper evidence from the start not only improves the quality of the expert’s work, it also helps attorneys avoid costly oversights or wasted efforts.

Early collaboration also allows experts to provide guidance on technical issues that may shape case strategy, deposition questions, or settlement discussions. By waiting too long, valuable opportunities to strengthen the case are often missed.

Bringing experts into the process sooner would benefit attorneys, clients, and the courts by ensuring that expert opinions are grounded in complete and accurate information. It is a change that would improve both efficiency and fairness in litigation.

About the Author

Steven S. Paul is an independent expert witness and vehicle litigation consultant with more than 25 years of experience in the automotive, heavy-duty truck, and transportation industries. He has provided expert inspections, forensic analysis, valuation reports, and courtroom testimony in over 2,000 matters, including lemon law, warranty, dealer fraud, misrepresentation, and vehicle valuation disputes. His work spans both plaintiff and defense cases across state and federal courts.

Steven’s career began in his family’s auto body shop, where he rebuilt classic cars and race cars from the frame up. He later served in the United States Army, maintaining and repairing heavy-duty vehicles and equipment during three overseas deployments. His civilian career has included roles as a technician, warranty administrator, purchasing manager, and service manager, as well as teaching Automotive and Diesel Technology at the college level.

As founder of SSP Vehicle Litigation Services and principal of TDT Vehicle Inspection Services, Steven provides pre-purchase inspections, forensic evaluations, and expert witness reports for attorneys and clients nationwide. He is ASE Master Certified in Automotive and Heavy-Duty Truck systems, a certified vehicle appraiser, and a seasoned courtroom witness known for clear, objective, and defensible testimony.

Visit Steven's Experts.com profile and connect with him on LinkedIn.