Understanding the Forensic Expert vs. Treating Clinician: Why the Distinction Matters

When building your case, understanding this distinction is not just an ethical technicality—it's essential for the credibility, admissibility, and persuasiveness of your psychological expert's testimony.

The Critical Distinction

There is a bright ethical line that separates two fundamentally different professional roles:

Why This Matters for Your Case

1. Objectivity and Credibility

A treating clinician has an inherent bias. Their professional duty is to help their patient heal, not to provide an impartial evaluation for litigation purposes. This therapeutic alliance can compromise the perceived objectivity of their testimony.

A forensic expert, by contrast, has no therapeutic duty to the individual being evaluated. My work is not therapy—it is an evaluation designed to be objective, impartial, and answer a specific legal question. This fundamental difference enhances credibility with the court.

2. Methodology and Scope

Treating clinicians typically focus on diagnosis and treatment planning. Their records are clinical notes, not comprehensive forensic reports designed for legal scrutiny.

Forensic experts employ a rigorous, multi-method approach specifically designed for litigation:

• Comprehensive review of all relevant records (medical, psychiatric, legal documents, depositions)
• Structured forensic clinical interviews (not therapy sessions)
• Psychological testing, including symptom validity tests to assess credibility
• Detailed forensic reports written for a legal audience
• Preparation for deposition and court testimony

3. Admissibility and Ethical Standards

Professional ethical guidelines from the American Psychological Association (APA) explicitly address this dual-role conflict. Psychologists are cautioned against serving as both a treating therapist and a forensic expert for the same person in the same case because:

• The therapeutic relationship creates bias that undermines forensic objectivity
• Confidentiality expectations in therapy conflict with the discovery requirements of litigation
• Treatment goals (healing) differ fundamentally from forensic goals (answering legal questions)

What This Means in Practice

When you retain me as a forensic expert, you are engaging someone whose sole function is to:

1. Conduct an objective, comprehensive evaluation
2. Provide scientifically-grounded opinions on specific legal questions
3. Educate the court and legal team through clear, defensible testimony

I will not be swayed by sympathy for the plaintiff, pressure from opposing counsel, or loyalty to your side. My role is to follow the data, apply rigorous methodology, and provide honest opinions—even if those opinions are not what either party wants to hear.

This objectivity is precisely what makes forensic expert testimony credible and persuasive.

The Bottom Line for Attorneys

Understanding the distinction between a treating expert and a forensic expert is essential for:

• Case Strategy: Knowing when to use testimony from a treating clinician versus retaining an independent forensic expert
• Credibility: Establishing the objectivity and scientific rigor of your expert witness
• Admissibility: Ensuring your expert's testimony meets ethical and legal standards
• Persuasiveness: Providing the court with unbiased, comprehensive psychological formulations rather than advocacy-tainted opinions