Economic DamagesExpert WitnessDaubert / FRE 702

The math is right.
The cross moves your levers.

A damages model is a set of levers — discount rate, wage growth, worklife expectancy, consumption offset — and opposing counsel's cross has one goal: show that every lever sits at the end of its published range that favors your client. This AI examiner runs that lever-by-lever cross out loud and scores you on the post-2023 FRE 702 rubric.

Start a free economic damages mock deposition → How the expert trainer works
6
Economic Damages cross-exam attack patterns
5
FRE 702 / Daubert prongs drilled
1
Signature impeachment trap

Why economic damages experts get hammered at deposition

Economists rarely get excluded — they get neutralized. The cross doesn't challenge present-value arithmetic; it demonstrates that your assumptions each lean the same direction, quantifies how far the number falls at the midpoints, and lets the jury do the credibility math.

The examiner in this trainer runs that neutralization sequence — and the sensitivity questions that expose whether you ever tested your own model's stability.

The attack patterns — what gets economic damages experts in trouble

Sev 10

No sensitivity analysis

A single-point damages figure — and no analysis showing how it moves when key inputs travel across their published ranges.

"I used the rate I always use."
Sev 9

Discount-rate selection

A below-market discount rate that inflates present value — defended by habit rather than a stated selection methodology.

"I used historical Treasury averages."
Sev 9

Worklife to 67, assumed

Retirement-age worklife assumed flat — ignoring worklife-expectancy tables, participation probabilities, and the plaintiff's actual history.

"I assumed he would have worked until Social Security age."
Sev 8

Wage growth vs earnings history

Steady annual growth projected for a worker whose documented earnings were flat for a decade.

"I applied standard wage-growth assumptions."
Sev 8

Consumption offset lowballed

In a death case, a personal-consumption percentage at the bottom of the literature — the offset that most directly moves the verdict.

"I used a 20 percent consumption rate."
Sev 7

Inherited inputs, unexamined

Earnings base and work restrictions adopted from the vocational expert or counsel without independent reasonableness checks.

"Those inputs came from the vocational report."

The signature impeachment trap

The lever trap

The examiner walks your assumptions one at a time — and makes each concession small enough that you give it, until they compound.

"If the discount rate moved to the midpoint of published rates, damages fall — correct?" → "Somewhat, yes."
"If worklife came from the published tables instead of age 67 — damages fall again?" → "They would."
"Wage growth at his actual historical rate — again?" → "Yes."
"Every one of your choices moved the number the same direction. What are the odds of that, Doctor?"

Why this lands: Each individual concession is defensible; the accumulation is lethal. The prepared economist either presents a sensitivity range up front or can justify each selection with a stated methodology that doesn't reduce to advocacy. The trainer runs the compounding sequence until you've got the answer that stops it.

FAQ

How does the AI deposition trainer work for economic damages experts?

You enter your discipline and case type — personal injury, wrongful death, commercial — and a realistic AI examiner cross-examines you out loud on discount rates, worklife, wage growth, offsets, and input provenance. Every session ends with a 5-axis FRE 702/Daubert scorecard. Unlimited private reps.

What are the most common attacks on forensic economists at deposition?

Assumption stacking (every input at the client-favorable end of its range), no sensitivity analysis, worklife and retirement assumptions that ignore published tables, consumption offsets outside the literature, and inherited vocational or counsel-supplied inputs adopted without independent checks.

Should I present a range instead of a single number?

Many economists now present sensitivity ranges precisely because the single-point figure invites the lever cross. Whichever form your retaining counsel prefers, you should be able to answer range questions fluently — and that fluency under hostile questioning is what the trainer builds.

What does it cost?

Your first full AI mock deposition is free — no credit card. After that: a $99 one-time 30-day pass with unlimited sessions before a specific deposition, or Expert Pro at $39/mo if you are deposed regularly.

Is my practice private?

Yes. Sessions are private by default and are not shared with retaining counsel, opposing counsel, or anyone else. This is educational deposition practice, not legal advice — always follow the guidance of retaining counsel, and don't enter confidential case identifiers.

Rehearse it before opposing counsel runs it for real

Your first full AI mock deposition is free — no credit card. Enter your field, get cross-examined out loud, and read your Daubert scorecard in about ten minutes.

Start your free mock deposition → Compare training options