As the largest provider of experts for complex commercial litigation, IMS ExpertServices has located experts for nearly all of the AmLaw 100 and more than two-thirds of the Fortune 100. We are an expert witness provider that specializes in connecting highly credentialed, experienced experts and consultants with the attorneys who need them. By focusing on this niche legal market, we are able to find more qualified experts in less time than it would typically take an attorney.
We're NOT a Registry
Unlike a database of self-proclaimed experts, we employ a rigorous search and vetting process to find and provide the exact expert needed for your case.
There is no risk in having us find and present experts for you. We do not charge for the search and assessment work. If you select an expert we provide, our fee is embedded in the expert's hourly rate and is typically in the customary range.
Because of our dedication to service and quality, IMS ExpertServices has consistently shown high-growth. We were selected by the legal industry as Best Expert Witness Provider in the 2012 NLJ Best of the Legal Industry survey. For the last five years, we have ranked on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest growing private companies in America.
Call us to see how our services can make the difference in your next case. 877-838-8464.
This week we bring you two fresh district court rulings involving experts who survived "gatekeeping" admissibility challenges under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
You would expect a challenge to an expert witness to be made before trial, before the expert has the opportunity to testify.
When you sue Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg claiming three-quarters ownership in the wildly successful social network, you are certain to get attention.
Can a trademark counterfeiting and infringement plaintiff elect statutory damages instead of actual damages under the Lanham Act and still receive attorney's fees?
Think you have that winning expert witness in your back pocket? Think again. The 6th Circuit has recently released an opinion that reminds experts and attorneys to use extreme caution: That ace-in-the-hole, hired-gun expert witness might just backfire if you're not careful.
A somewhat touchy expert witness question recently surfaced in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana. After designating an expert witness as a testifying expert, a party decided to shift gears during discovery, suddenly re-designating its expert as non-testifying, consulting.
Ponder these mind-boggling statistics, courtesy of the ABA 2012 Litigation Section Annual Conference:
When an expert has a change of mind about his or her own opinion, what does it mean to the case? A recent decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sheds new light on this recurring question. The issue is one that comes up with surprising regularity, sometimes with dramatic consequences.
For attorneys previously reluctant to dive into the world of online social media, the benefits of utilizing social networking as part of an effective marketing strategy are now undeniable. Navigating the social media world can be fraught with legal dangers and complex ethical issues unique to the legal profession, and often the rules regulating ethical compliance for attorneys are ambiguous at best.
When IBM's Watson beat two human challengers to win the TV quiz show Jeopardy!, a collective "Wow!" was heard at just how far artificial intelligence has developed.
Facing increases in litigation and decreases in legal budgets, corporate defendants in patent and trademark lawsuits are more regularly employing a tactic most would not have dreamed of a decade ago. Rather than fight these cases single-handedly, they are joining together and hiring a single law firm to represent them as a group.
A major revision to the federal rules governing expert witness reports is on track to take effect in December. Lawyers and experts alike agree that the changes are long overdue.
The New Year has barely begun, but all indications suggest 2010 will bring a surge in litigation involving major corporations. With that surge will come increasing demand for expert witnesses across a range of business-to-business disputes
As 2009 drew close to its end, the Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to decide a case many lawyers believed could set new precedent regarding the admissibility of expert testimony. But earlier in the year, in a key criminal case, the court affirmed the right of a defendant to confront experts who prepare prosecution evidence
It is déjà vu all over again, as the Supreme Court once again has agreed to review a controversial patent ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue this time: whether a patent owner's rights were exhausted by a license agreement and subsequent sale of product pursuant to the license.
Ronald A. Katz once predicted that he would someday become the wealthiest patent holder ever. By most estimates, he has achieved that goal – or will soon.
A federal judge's decision to exclude expert testimony may force hundreds of plaintiffs to drop their claims against Pfizer Inc. that the anti-inflammatory drug Celebrex caused them to suffer heart attacks or strokes.
A federal court ruling excluding all expert testimony that the drug-preservative thimerosal caused a minor child's autism is likely to have repercussions well beyond the case in which it came
