Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Working Well with Custody Experts

By Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, MD and Susan J. Galatzer-Levy, MS
April 01, 2003

Undoubtedly, mental health experts can play a key role in determining custody issues in the context of a divorce-if they are chosen carefully and then well prepared by the matrimonial attorney. Part One of this article (see March Issue) discussed some of the problems that may arise between mental health experts and attorneys due to differences regarding ethics, money and time commitments, and offered some solutions. Part two focuses on preparing the custody expert for trial.

The universal wisdom that adequate preparation is essential to good testimony is nowhere more applicable than in the context of expert testimony. There are several components to ensuring that the attorney derives the best possible results from the custody evaluator at trial:

Establishing a Strategic Communication Plan

In the courtroom, the attorney and expert must work well together if vital information is to be presented to the court. This means that the attorney needs to know what to ask and the expert needs to know how to respond in a clear, communicative fashion. Thus, it is imperative that the attorney and expert have enough time to prepare together.

Introducing the expert to the court should go beyond simply qualifying the expert. The judge needs to know why the expert should be believed. Similarly, the goal of direct-examination is not merely to get an opinion on the record but to communicate it in such a fashion that the judge is likely to adopt that opinion. Preparation for direct-examination should go beyond ensuring fluent responses to clear questions and editing particular questions and responses for clarity and incisiveness – it should involve a strategic communication plan.

Reviewing Court Etiquette

At the same time, it is important to review basic court etiquette, especially if the expert is relatively inexperienced. Remind the expert to give you time to finish a question. If the expert seems too loquacious or too taciturn, tell him/her so and help him/her rehearse a more effective style of testifying. Make sure the expert knows how to deal with questions by referring to notes, asking for clarifications of questions and taking a needed break. Unless you have worked with the expert before and know that he/she is at ease with courtroom mechanics, going into detail about these matters will be reassuring and helpful; on the other hand, failure to address them in advance can make for awkward moments — or worse — during testimony. Encourage the expert to familiarize him-/herself with the courtroom in advance of the trial. Remember that every surprise diminishes the expert's effectiveness. Not only is it an inauspicious beginning if the expert's first act is to struggle to figure out how to get to the witness stand or to react with visible surprise at a particularly dingy or grand courtroom, it often sets up a situation from which it is hard to recover.

Understanding His/Her Role

A common error made by psychological experts is to believe that the case rests much more on the expert's shoulders than it actually does. Wanting to be helpful, he/she may try to bring in testimony that is much better elicited from the parties. For example, the vivid descriptions of domestic violence that many victims and sometimes perpetrators give if correctly examined are far more powerful than the second-hand summaries provided by even the best expert. If you think it is wiser that an expert not address or go into detail about some matter, let the expert know that, and explain the reason for this decision.

Appraising the Judge/Jury

An honest appraisal of the judge and, when applicable, the jury, can be enormously helpful to the expert. The expert will, appropriately, talk in a very different manner to a judge who knows nothing about psychology and one who is highly sophisticated in this area. Obviously, the more you and the expert know about the judge's style, including the judge's idiosyncrasies, the more effective you both can be.

Allotting Sufficient Time for Testimony

Surprisingly often, lawyers fail to make realistic arrangements for the expert to be present in court or fail to ensure that the expert has put aside sufficient time for testimony. The expert who is sitting on the witness stand picturing distressed patients anxiously sitting in his or her waiting room, or trying to figure out how to contact patients to reschedule appointments, is not fully focused on the work at hand. Even if it increases the cost of retaining the expert, encourage setting aside adequate time to complete the testimony. In some jurisdictions, expert testimony is continued, sometimes over the course of several months, when insufficient time is allotted to it. The result is almost always poor as the judge, lawyers and expert have all lost track of what was going on and issues that could have been briskly addressed are hard to resurrect.

The article concludes in the May Issue with a discussion of direct and cross-examination.


Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, MD Susan J. Galatzer-Levy, MS

Undoubtedly, mental health experts can play a key role in determining custody issues in the context of a divorce-if they are chosen carefully and then well prepared by the matrimonial attorney. Part One of this article (see March Issue) discussed some of the problems that may arise between mental health experts and attorneys due to differences regarding ethics, money and time commitments, and offered some solutions. Part two focuses on preparing the custody expert for trial.

The universal wisdom that adequate preparation is essential to good testimony is nowhere more applicable than in the context of expert testimony. There are several components to ensuring that the attorney derives the best possible results from the custody evaluator at trial:

Establishing a Strategic Communication Plan

In the courtroom, the attorney and expert must work well together if vital information is to be presented to the court. This means that the attorney needs to know what to ask and the expert needs to know how to respond in a clear, communicative fashion. Thus, it is imperative that the attorney and expert have enough time to prepare together.

Introducing the expert to the court should go beyond simply qualifying the expert. The judge needs to know why the expert should be believed. Similarly, the goal of direct-examination is not merely to get an opinion on the record but to communicate it in such a fashion that the judge is likely to adopt that opinion. Preparation for direct-examination should go beyond ensuring fluent responses to clear questions and editing particular questions and responses for clarity and incisiveness – it should involve a strategic communication plan.

Reviewing Court Etiquette

At the same time, it is important to review basic court etiquette, especially if the expert is relatively inexperienced. Remind the expert to give you time to finish a question. If the expert seems too loquacious or too taciturn, tell him/her so and help him/her rehearse a more effective style of testifying. Make sure the expert knows how to deal with questions by referring to notes, asking for clarifications of questions and taking a needed break. Unless you have worked with the expert before and know that he/she is at ease with courtroom mechanics, going into detail about these matters will be reassuring and helpful; on the other hand, failure to address them in advance can make for awkward moments — or worse — during testimony. Encourage the expert to familiarize him-/herself with the courtroom in advance of the trial. Remember that every surprise diminishes the expert's effectiveness. Not only is it an inauspicious beginning if the expert's first act is to struggle to figure out how to get to the witness stand or to react with visible surprise at a particularly dingy or grand courtroom, it often sets up a situation from which it is hard to recover.

Understanding His/Her Role

A common error made by psychological experts is to believe that the case rests much more on the expert's shoulders than it actually does. Wanting to be helpful, he/she may try to bring in testimony that is much better elicited from the parties. For example, the vivid descriptions of domestic violence that many victims and sometimes perpetrators give if correctly examined are far more powerful than the second-hand summaries provided by even the best expert. If you think it is wiser that an expert not address or go into detail about some matter, let the expert know that, and explain the reason for this decision.

Appraising the Judge/Jury

An honest appraisal of the judge and, when applicable, the jury, can be enormously helpful to the expert. The expert will, appropriately, talk in a very different manner to a judge who knows nothing about psychology and one who is highly sophisticated in this area. Obviously, the more you and the expert know about the judge's style, including the judge's idiosyncrasies, the more effective you both can be.

Allotting Sufficient Time for Testimony

Surprisingly often, lawyers fail to make realistic arrangements for the expert to be present in court or fail to ensure that the expert has put aside sufficient time for testimony. The expert who is sitting on the witness stand picturing distressed patients anxiously sitting in his or her waiting room, or trying to figure out how to contact patients to reschedule appointments, is not fully focused on the work at hand. Even if it increases the cost of retaining the expert, encourage setting aside adequate time to complete the testimony. In some jurisdictions, expert testimony is continued, sometimes over the course of several months, when insufficient time is allotted to it. The result is almost always poor as the judge, lawyers and expert have all lost track of what was going on and issues that could have been briskly addressed are hard to resurrect.

The article concludes in the May Issue with a discussion of direct and cross-examination.


Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, MD Susan J. Galatzer-Levy, MS

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders Image

Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.