Laurel Van Allen, Coherent Economics

Our Spotlight Series, coordinated by the ERE Young Practitioners’ Committee, continues this month with an interview with Laurel Van Allen from Coherent Economics. If you would like to be featured in an edition of the Spotlight Series please email Patricia Moroney ([email protected]) or Laura Powell ([email protected])

?

?

Laurel, please tell us a little more about your background:

I have been in the economic consulting industry for more than 20 years. But I didn’t set out to go into consulting, instead pursuing a life in academia. Or so I thought.

I came to realize I was better suited to the private sector, yet I still needed the intellectual stimulation I had expected as a professor. Through some combination of luck, intellect, and hard work, I seem to have a knack for applied economics and finance, and economic consulting allows me to apply theory and principles to complex, real-world problems. I suppose it is not much of a coincidence that I “fell into” a profession for which I was very well suited!

My career has evolved in unexpected ways, and at every step I have pushed myself out of my comfort zone to see what more I could accomplish. I am not a thrill seeker, but I do believe in taking bets on yourself. My biggest bet to date has been taking the leap of faith to choose leadership by building a consulting firm and working with colleagues who share our firm’s values and culture.

Many people find that professional success is not a linear path, and I am no different. However, I do think my values have been put into practice in unexpected ways. For example, I currently serve as a trustee for an institution of higher Jewish education, and I’ve found that my admiration for academic learning combined with my skills as a leader, expert, and consultant help me contribute to the advancement of higher learning in ways I couldn’t have anticipated as a youth. Bottom line lesson for life: figure out what you love, and it all somehow works out.

?

What has been the highlight of your career?

The highlight of my career has been getting to meaningfully contribute to every trial I have worked on, both as a testifying expert and a consulting expert. All of the hard work, late nights, careful examination of the evidence, preparation and collaboration with my team and counsel comes together at trial.

Trial feels energizing to me because the stakes are so high, which tends to elevate everyone’s performance. I look forward to those experiences and the preparation required to deliver powerful, persuasive expert testimony in that high pressure environment. There are countless factors beyond the control of the expert and his or her team that dictate the outcome of a trial, but I feel fulfilled knowing that I am delivering on our promise for exceptional work in the most intense moments.

?

What has been the biggest challenge of your career??

Disputes are adversarial in nature. While this feature of our work is unavoidable, I am not someone who naturally enjoys combat. I therefore often experience the tension between the conflict-oriented process inherent in disputes and the collaborative environment that I foster with my team and counsel. I strive to turn even the most antagonistic matters into opportunities to learn and support my team and our client. I’ve found that by maintaining this atmosphere, even the most contentious disputes can be meaningful experiences as an expert and consultant.

?

What career advice would you give your younger self?

Young professionals who have the talent, drive, and instincts to do well as experts should observe and learn from every expert they encounter (even the ones on the opposing side of a case), patiently learn the trade, and build the confidence to advocate when necessary.?

There is a wide range of expert styles that can work, and what makes them work is when an expert is being authentic.? I have observed friendly and solemn, gracious and pompous, chatty and terse experts each testify well -- or less well – depending on the situation.

While style is highly personal, the approach to expert work as scientific, rigorous, and evidence-based is not. It takes time for professionals to learn how to best apply the tools appropriately given the specific facts and circumstances of each case and what style of presentation is most authentic. Every project, therefore, provides an opportunity for junior professionals to observe what goes well and what could be improved.

It is important to apply this unbiased, sober framework even when assessing experts who take opposing positions on important issues: clearly someone thought this person would be the right expert to present their opinions. Even if the opposing expert’s work is deeply flawed, one can assess whether they were convincing in their response to critiques, made a clever (albeit erroneous) point, or simply maintained a friendly, calm demeanour under intense grilling.? Ultimately, you can learn a great deal about how to be an expert witness by observing experts.?

Finally, advocacy should be used appropriately to help build confidence and address difficulties. In my earlier days, I failed to speak up when I faced an aggressive, toxic colleague or took on extra work when some of my peers were lagging. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that I had developed habits that were costly insofar as they created imbalance in my workload and enabled some of my peers to get by with doing less. I know that many women face similar challenges in their professional lives because we often perceive that we must work harder and “play nice” to get ahead. I would tell my younger self to continue to demand excellence of myself but also to demand excellence of my peers, and to speak up to managers if nothing improves.

?

What is the secret to having longevity as an expert witness??

The best experts take the time to understand their own set of values and beliefs to understand how that affects their analyses and conclusions across wildly different facts and circumstances. This will guide an expert to not waver when there is pressure to take an extreme position that falls outside of their core principles in a particular matter. Every case is distinctive and there is often room for staking out a principled position, but experts who inconsistently apply methodologies to suit their clients’ demands weaken their credibility. It is generally better to build a reputation as a principled expert who has a point of view buttressed by rigorous support than one who can be overly flexible.

?

Question from last month’s interviewee (Bernadette Barker, Barker Consultants): What do you dislike about being an expert witness?

Over the years I have seen the efforts to exclude experts balloon to a point of near-absurdity. I respect the role of a judge to be the gatekeeper on expert testimony, and it can be appropriate in the right circumstance to exclude experts who improperly apply methodologies or fail to use objective, scientific reasoning in their work. But the nature of our line of work allows for the greatest possible scrutiny by an opposing expert and consulting team. Few other professions involve the level of critique that experts both give and receive. Moreover, attorneys sometimes turn to personal or superficial attacks in their efforts to exclude experts, which degrades both them and the process. Many of these issues are better addressed in depositions, cross examinations and rebuttals. I fear that the excesses of efforts to exclude experts often imposes huge costs on every party involved in a case with limited return. I would instead like to see those efforts focused on instances where an expert has clearly overstepped their bounds or failed to properly apply a reasonable method.? ??

What would you like to ask the next expert to be featured in the Spotlight Series?

How do you see the use of AI affecting workflow, expert engagements, team roles, and perhaps even the role of experts?