The report hands decisions to the trier of fact rather than advocating. That can be appropriate for a forensic expert who wants to stay credible, but you should confirm with your attorneys whether this is the posture you want.
When I read that (AI-generated) observation in feedback on an expert report, I couldn’t help but think “That’s the point.” Few comments better capture one of the most common misconceptions about forensic accounting and expert witness work.
A forensic accountant’s task is not to advocate for a desired outcome. It is to objectively evaluate evidence, apply sound methodology, and present conclusions that can withstand scrutiny. Sometimes that means acknowledging limitations, conflicting evidence, or issues that ultimately will be decided by the trier of fact. Those distinctions are often what make expert opinions credible in the first place.
This observation raises a broader question that extends beyond any single engagement we tackle: What is the proper role of a forensic accounting expert in litigation?
Expert’s Role vs. Attorney’s Role
Litigation is inherently adversarial. Attorneys are expected, and often zealously, to represent their clients’ interests within the bounds of the law. We as experts serve a different purpose. As CPAs, CFEs, and forensic accounting professionals, our credibility depends on our ability to remain objective. The AICPA’s Statements on Standards for Forensic Services emphasize integrity and objectivity in the performance of expert services. While experts are retained by one side of a dispute, our obligation is to the facts and to the reliability of our analysis.
That does not mean experts are neutral in the sense of having no opinion. Experts are often asked to reach conclusions. However, those conclusions must be supported by the available evidence and a defensible methodology, not by a desire to advance a client’s preferred narrative. In many cases, the strongest expert opinion is one that carefully explains what the evidence establishes, what it does not establish, and which ultimate determinations remain within the ruling of the court, jury, or arbitrator.
Why “Handing Decisions to the Trier of Fact” Can Be Appropriate
Clients understandably want an expert report that aggressively supports their position. After all, they are involved in a dispute and believe they are right. The issue is that experts who overstep their role may unintentionally weaken the value of their testimony.
Courts, arbitrators, and opposing counsel frequently scrutinize whether an expert has remained within the scope of their expertise. If an expert appears to be arguing the case rather than analyzing it, opposing counsel will often challenge credibility during cross-examination. We have seen this play out.
A carefully drafted report may therefore include statements that acknowledge limitations, identify alternative explanations, discuss competing evidence, or leave determinations to the trier of fact. To some readers, this may sound less persuasive. To other experts, judges, and juries, it can sound more credible. A report that openly addresses both favorable and unfavorable evidence frequently carries more weight than one that appears designed solely to support a predetermined conclusion.
The Growing Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation
AI is rapidly becoming part of the litigation process. Attorneys, clients, and experts alike are using AI tools to summarize documents, identify themes, and improve efficiency. Those tools have value; however, there is an important distinction between summarizing an expert report and evaluating whether the report complies with professional standards.
An AI system may conclude that a report is “too neutral” because it’s not overtly persuasive. Maybe it suggests an expert should advocate more for the party who retained them. From a forensic accounting perspective, that recommendation may conflict with the qualities that make expert testimony credible. Objectivity in a report is not a flaw to be corrected. It’s a professional requirement that experts must maintain.
Objectivity Is Not a Weakness
In today’s litigation environment, there can be pressure on experts to appear more persuasive, more aggressive, or more aligned with the client’s narrative. The most valuable experts are often those who resist that pressure. Because when credibility is on the table, objectivity is often the strongest defense an expert can offer.
If you have any questions or are interested in learning more, we are here to help. Please do not hesitate to reach out to discuss your specific situation.
This material has been prepared for general, informational purposes only and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, tax, legal or accounting advice. Should you require any such advice, please contact us directly. The information contained herein does not create, and your review or use of the information does not constitute, an accountant-client relationship.
