Two days on how medical-malpractice expert work actually runs — records review, opinion formation, report writing, and testimony. Then, on Sunday, every attendee is cross-examined on camera by a practicing litigator and walks out with a scored readout of their own testimony.
Every physician-expert program in this market is didactic: you listen to lawyers describe how depositions go, you take notes, you go home. You have still never been cross-examined.
Here you are. On Sunday morning you sit down in a room with a camera, a proctor, and a working litigator whose job for the next twenty minutes is to run the standard techniques at you — the presupposition trap, the concession ladder, the “basically…, right?” characterization. Your peers observe and score you against the same rubric you were taught the day before. Nothing is a surprise except how you actually perform.
Before lunch you receive a written, scored readout of your own testimony: per-failure-mode counts, flagged excerpts, the positive signals, and the two patterns to fix first — from your peers' tallies, your examiner's notes, and the same scoring engine that firms buy for their own witnesses. Your video follows within days. Then a 1:1 faculty debrief on the flagged moments.
That readout is the product. Everything Friday and Saturday exists to prepare you for those twenty minutes, and the readout is the reason you can improve after you go home.
Welcome reception. Faculty introductions, and every attendee states their specialty and what they want out of the weekend. You are handed the case file you will work all weekend: a fully synthetic, Bates-stamped ~900-page hospital chart, built from scratch with the deviations, the decoy, and the honest causation problem placed on purpose. No real patient data, ever.
The market for your opinion. Who retains experts and how, plaintiff vs. defense economics, realistic income, the fee rules physicians most often get wrong, and the ethical line between advocating for your opinion and advocating for a party.
Records review, worked live. Building a timestamped timeline across physician notes, nursing flowsheets, labs and the audit trail; finding the deviation candidates and ranking them by defensibility; then building the other side's best argument out of the same record.
Opinion formation and the standard of care. What the legal standard is and is not, guideline hierarchies, breach vs. causation — and the December 2023 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which raised the bar on every opinion and which most physicians have never heard of.
Lunch panel. A working plaintiff attorney and a working defense attorney answer the same question: what makes me rehire an expert, and what made me never call one again.
Report writing that survives. Architecture, pincites, mandatory disclosures, and the language that turns a report into a cross-examination exhibit. Workshop on a seeded specimen report, marked up live.
Deposition anatomy. Page-line teardown of real public-record testimony: the thirteen recurring witness failure modes, the four highest-yield examiner techniques, and the counter to each. You study the exact rubric you will be scored on tomorrow.
Then your packet. Each attendee gets an individual opinion territory in the chart to defend under oath in the morning.
Mock deposition drills. Three examiner-led rooms, on camera, under oath, on the record. Up to twenty minutes each. Peers observe and score. Examiners run a calibrated escalation ladder, not a demolition — the point is a scored mirror, not a hazing, and there is a stated recess protocol for anyone who wants one.
Your readout. Individual scored reports, the cohort's anonymized failure-mode distribution, and your 1:1 debrief slot.
Challenges and the paper trail. How admissibility challenges to medical experts actually proceed, your permanent record — prior-testimony databases, publication history, fee disclosures — the real risk of professional-society discipline for testimony, and compliant engagement letters and fee schedules.
Building the practice. CV surgery in pairs, rate-setting from current specialty data, the first inquiry call role-played against an attorney who wants an opinion before retention, ethical channels for making yourself findable, and a first-five-cases plan with your declination criteria fixed in advance.
Close. Certificates, and the first calendar invitation for the spaced follow-up reps.
Seats are capped at 36 — the cap is what makes on-camera cross for every attendee possible at all.
$1,895 – $2,495 expected range
Nothing is charged today and there is no deposit. This is the range we expect to publish once the venue, faculty and accreditation costs are final; the number could move. The interest list gets founding pricing and the first look at seats.
Dates: Winter 2027 — dates announced to the interest list first. We are not announcing a weekend until the venue and the accredited provider are both locked, because a date we have to move costs you a call schedule.
CME: CME credit is planned via joint providership, and accreditation is in process. Nothing here is accredited yet. The accredited provider holds final authority over content and over the number of credits, and we will publish a credit figure only after they approve it.
Faculty: physicians with medical-legal adjudication experience, plus working plaintiff-side and defense-side litigators as examiners. Faculty are announced to the interest list as contracts are signed.
No cost, no deposit, no obligation — this tells us the demand is real and tells you the dates before anyone else. Your answers also shape the weekend: the specialty mix decides the teaching chart's arc, and your timing preference decides the date window.
You will hear from us when the dates and the accredited provider are locked — before anyone else, and with founding pricing. In the meantime, the same scoring engine used for the Sunday readouts is described here: the witness performance audit.