Do law firms ever employ evidence technicians full-time?

January 16, 2007 11:41 AM

Do private law firms employ subject matter experts or evidence technicians?

I have a possible interest in exploring a career in forensic science, specifically computer forensics. I'm already familiar with the process, required education, and necessary credentials. The big thing holding me back is the low pay that is typical of law enforcement (or DoD) jobs.

I know that private law firms often use subject matter experts to testify as an expert witness. I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that they also use them to perform their own examinations of evidence.

Would a law firm with its own experts on staff represent a conflict of interest? Are these people ever employed by the law firm itself, or do they only work as consultants?

posted by tkolstee to law & government (10 comments total)

I worked on a couple of different financial cases at major law firms involving valuations. Both sides hired their own independent experts to testify on various matters relevant to the facts. It would be a conflict of interest for the experts to be in house and I would presume that all firm would probably, at the very least, contract this work out. The being said, I think you could certainly find a lot of work in that field and build a curriculum working as an expert witness.
posted by BigBrownBear at 11:56 AM on January 16, 2007

BigBrownBear nailed it. It IS a conflict to have an expert on staff. It all must be contract work. Much of this is incredibly steady work when you have built your reputation. I know of one accident recreation specialist that has every week between now and 2008 booked for one trial or another.
posted by Not in my backyard at 1:31 PM on January 16, 2007

A law firm will always go outside for any kind of work that requires that the contractor testify about what he did, what he found, and what it means. If the person were an employee, he would be susceptible to charges or insinuations of bias.

If it is work that does not require testimony from the person doing it, then a firm would sometimes hire the person directly.

You live in Florida, a hotbed of litigation. I would estimate (without checking) that I could identify ten different companies of various sizes that provide CFI services to lawyers in your state. Call on them.
posted by yclipse at 2:13 PM on January 16, 2007

Plus you have the chance to undergo NTI training when it's next offered in Jacksonville.
posted by yclipse at 2:52 PM on January 16, 2007

Law firms contract out for it. A few of the big consulting groups as well as most private security companies either have in-house computer forensics/electronic litigation support groups. Be aware however that unless you are either a manager or running your own group the pay is not much higher than law enforcement.
posted by frieze at 3:18 PM on January 16, 2007

Yes. Law firms contract out for this. They definitely contract out for computer forensics work -- I've been involved in a case where we did this and asked around for referrals for a good computer forensics specialist. I think these issues come up alot in antitrust or general litigation cases involving spoilage of evidence (e.g., someone tries to wipe their computer clean, possibly to hide some illegal act) and also possibly (though I'm less sure on this) in class actions involving leveraged buyouts.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:39 PM on January 16, 2007

Law firms do hire their own experts for their staffs. As other commenters have said, these experts would never testify in court, but rather, they assist the law firms to evaluate cases, separate the wheat from the chaff. You'll notice, at some of the larger plaintiff's firms, they will often have a registered nurse on staff for this purpose.

Similarly, some of the big, white-shoe East Coast firms will employ economists in-house, and their purpose is to assist with and analyze cases, not to testify.

I used to work at a good plaintiff's firm, specializing in product liability work, and there was an engineer who was a de facto member of the law firm staff (though he was paid on a contract basis). He would evaluate cases that came through the door, and make his own analysis of the product defect that caused the injury. He was paid quite well, I believe.

The problem you may face is that there are probably relatively few firms that do enough work related to your area of specialty to send you a lot of well-paid work. But maybe there are some out there.
posted by jayder at 6:50 PM on January 16, 2007

I have done some of this work for law firms. In my experience with larger firms, their in-house IT staff provides them guidance on these matters in terms of discovery questions and screening and they outsource when they need testimony. Smaller firms often have outsourced IT functions, so they outsource this as well. Even in the big firms, the in-house person was a generalist -- not a pure forensic scientist.

My firm does a great deal of work for the government and I believe that salaries are quite competitive with private industry. I wouldn't say that forensic work is the best paying work in the industry, but I pay them more than a lot of other specialties. This is in part because the job requires extensive security clearances that I don't need for all the developers or network support folks.
posted by Lame_username at 7:57 PM on January 16, 2007

yclipse: Why go for NTI training when I have the National Center for Forensic Science 10 minutes away? :)

jayder: Are you speculating at the end of your comment about not finding enough work, or do you know something about this? I've heard lots of law enforcement officers at all levels say that a great percentage of their cases involve computer forensics nowdays. Not just the computer related ones like hacking, CP, and financial crimes. Nowdays they're using them in things like murder cases to prove premeditation (Your honor, this was not a crime of passion. The defendant searched for "dissolve body quicklime" on google a week before the incident).

Actually, I'm not worried about their being not enough work, I'm worried about the amount of people to perform it. Between the resources available in the area, the popularity of CSI, and everyone trying to cash in on the homeland security mania these days, I think there could be a lot of people entering the field soon.

I'm not too serious about this as of yet - I've been working in IT, and directly with Forensics R&D, for a while now, but no college degree. With a grad certificate now available in the field (NCFS offers one), I'd have to really work on the educational credentials to be qualified as an expert. From what I hear Daubert hearings can be a pain.
posted by tkolstee at 2:34 PM on January 18, 2007

jayder: Are you speculating at the end of your comment about not finding enough work, or do you know something about this? I've heard lots of law enforcement officers at all levels say that a great percentage of their cases involve computer forensics nowdays. Not just the computer related ones like hacking, CP, and financial crimes. Nowdays they're using them in things like murder cases to prove premeditation (Your honor, this was not a crime of passion. The defendant searched for "dissolve body quicklime" on google a week before the incident).

I was speculating. In some parts of the country you might find lots of work --- although I would hazard a guess that most forensic technology work would be related to white-collar crime, and litigation of various types, not violent crime. (In my experience, the vast majority of people who are prosecuted for crimes are not very computer literate.)
posted by jayder at 3:13 PM on January 18, 2007