Vocational opinions live or die on methodology: did you survey the actual labor market or cite published tables? Did you validate the plaintiff's reported restrictions against the medical record? Can you defend every input your transferable-skills software consumed? This AI examiner runs that cross out loud and scores you on the post-2023 FRE 702 rubric.
Start a free vocational rehabilitation mock deposition → How the expert trainer worksBoth sides attack vocational experts the same way: by separating what you personally verified from what you took on faith — the plaintiff's self-reported limitations, the software's occupation list, the published wage data standing in for an actual labor-market survey.
The examiner in this trainer runs that separation methodically, then presses the conflations the discipline is known for: employability versus placeability, capacity versus opportunity, best-year earnings versus work-history reality.
A placeability opinion supported entirely by published data — zero employer contacts, zero job-search testing in the plaintiff's market.
Jobs existing in the regional economy offered as proof this person, with these restrictions, can actually get hired into one.
Functional limitations taken from the plaintiff interview without tying them back to — or reconciling them with — the medical record.
TSA software output adopted wholesale — stale occupational codes, inputs you can't individually justify.
A total-loss opinion with no reasonable-accommodation analysis — as if the ADA doesn't exist in the but-for world.
Pre-injury earning capacity anchored to the plaintiff's single best year rather than the documented work-history pattern.
The examiner locks you into the unemployability opinion — then makes you inventory what you actually did to test it.
Why this lands: A literature-only methodology can survive — but only if you frame it as accepted practice and own its limits before the examiner frames it as an empty Rolodex. The trainer runs this sequence until your methodology answer is composed, specific, and boring.
You enter your discipline and the case posture — earning-capacity loss, employability, life-care collaboration — and a realistic AI examiner cross-examines you out loud on survey methodology, self-report validation, TSA inputs, and accommodation analysis. Every session ends with a 5-axis FRE 702/Daubert scorecard. Unlimited private reps.
Placeability opinions without labor-market survey work, uncritical reliance on plaintiff self-report, software-generated transferable-skills lists the expert can't defend input by input, ignored accommodation analysis, and cherry-picked earnings baselines. Post-2023 FRE 702 asks whether a reliable method was reliably applied to this plaintiff — which is where these attacks land.
Certification carries the qualifications prong; it doesn't answer methodology. Most vocational impeachments happen on application — what you verified versus what you assumed for this plaintiff. That's where the trainer spends its time.
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.
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.
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