Engineering failures rarely start with a single crack or a single bad decision. They start with messy constraints, unclear scopes, missing documents, rushed timelines, and people making judgment calls under pressure. In this episode, we connect with James Cohen, an award-winning forensic engineer and seasoned expert witness with more than 40 years in structural engineering, failure analysis, testing, and code work. He shares the moments that pulled him into forensic engineering, plus the hard-earned habits that keep an expert credible when the stakes are high.

We dig into what actually governs an engineering opinion in litigation: the contract, the scope of work, and the specific codes and standards that were invoked at the time. James explains why working across countries is often less about geography and more about figuring out which standards apply and what the factors of safety really mean.

From there, we get highly practical on expert witness workflow: the key questions to ask on the first attorney call, how licensing and conflicts shape whether you should accept a matter, why budgets have become a bigger part of modern engagements, and when it makes sense to bring in MEP or cost estimating support. James also shares how he approaches depositions and trials, including simple demonstratives that help juries understand compression, torsion, and shear, and why report writing should be built for a lay reader without losing technical rigor.

If you’re an attorney hiring experts or an engineer stepping into testimony, this one will sharpen your process. Subscribe for more conversations like this, share it with someone who works in litigation support, and leave a review with your biggest expert witness red flag or best first-call question.