To better prepare attorneys and expert witnesses for Section 337 proceedings, the ITC’s Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) established the Nurturing Excellence in Trial Advocates (NEXT Advocates) Program which supports the ITCTLA’s Mock Hearing Event. WIT is a proud supporter of the NEXT Advocates Program and provided experts for this year’s Mock Hearing, offering the participating attorneys the opportunity to gain experience in presenting a witness before an actual ITC judge.
To better understand the program and its benefits, we sat down with Daniel Pittman, an engineering expert and educator, who participated in this year’s event. Here’s what he had to say about his experience.
WIT: Can you describe your overall experience with the ITC’s ITCTLA Mock Hearing Program? What motivated you to participate?
Pittman: I am new to being an expert witness, and this opportunity to participate in the ITCTLA Mock Hearing program offered a great chance to practice testifying in a real courtroom and learn the process of how a legal team prepares a witness for court. I also wanted to help the lawyers participating in the program that had not gotten a chance to perform direct or cross-examinations. I was very happy when WIT reached out to ask me to participate! The process was amazing, and I learned a ton about what it means to be an effective expert witness.
WIT: What specific skills were you looking to develop (or did develop) through this program?
Pittman: I wanted to familiarize myself with the process of how to prepare to testify, and better understand what the experience was like being on the witness stand in the courtroom. Learning who to look at when responding, how to handle myself during cross-examination, and understanding how to interact with the team during direct examination were all amazing skills I was able to practice during the event.
WIT: What were the key components of the program’s structure? How did the structure of the program facilitate your learning and professional growth?
Pittman: Getting to go to the ITC and being in front of a real ALJ was by far the most important part of the program’s structure. Getting to go through the materials as if we were participating in a real case, and then getting feedback from the ALJ about how we did was such a valuable experience. It was in some ways even better than testifying in a real trial, because the feedback from the judge gave us so much insight into how they consider the material that is introduced and how we can improve our delivery.
WIT: Who did you work with for the event? And did you put in more hours working alone or as a member of the team?
Pittman: Leading up to the mock hearing we met on MS Teams three times, for about an hour each meeting. I also reviewed the materials I was sent outside of those meetings, spending maybe five hours in total reviewing them. The day before the hearing we met to go through the materials in detail, spending probably five hours in total reviewing both sides of the case, finding gaps in our expert report that we might get asked about, practicing the direct examination to make sure we were on the same page, and finding things to ask about in the plaintiff’s report during cross-examination. I felt like it was very much a team effort, and I don’t think I put more time in on my own vs. working with the team. Everyone involved with the hearing was committed, and I think we all wanted to get the most out of it we could. The day of the hearing took about six hours in total between prep in the morning, the hearing itself, and then watching other teams before our group photos. There was then a reception in the evening for about two hours.
WIT: Which ALJ did you work with for this program? What would you say about their participation in the event?
Pittman: Our team was assigned to ALJ Johnson Hines, and she was amazing. She understood the point of these hearings was to give people new to conducting these examinations a chance to gain experience and made sure in her comments to both sides to say what went well, and what didn’t. I was particularly appreciative of her taking the time to give the witnesses feedback as well, given that the focus of the event was not on us, but instead on the lawyers getting experience in the case.
WIT: What were some of the challenges you faced during the program, and how did you overcome them?
Pittman: The biggest challenge for me was understanding how to play the part of the witness based on the CV and report I was provided. I had to play someone in a completely different discipline from my own, and that was difficult. What helped was really digging into the material, going through it with the team, and understanding that I am not expected to know the entire domain, just be able to respond to questions based on the material I was given. By the time we were in the courtroom, I felt prepared to answer questions about the case.
WIT: Did you receive any feedback or mentoring during the program?
Pittman: I was pleased to hear that I did very well on the stand. The person that did my cross-examination was in fact very surprised to find out I had not done this before. She thought I was experienced at being an expert. The judge said that my style was more “combative” than the other expert that day, but my team told me that this was a good thing in that I challenged the questions on cross-examination in a way that wasn’t overly confrontational, but made to clarify the scope under which I would agree with an assertion. It was a great skill to practice, learning when to push back and when to not, during cross-examination.
WIT: Would you recommend the ITC’s NEXT Advocates Program to other experts? Why?
Pittman: I cannot overstate how happy I am to have participated in this program. The connections I made, the experience I gained, and the confidence I built in my ability to be an effective witness, are outcomes from the program that I am so glad to have been a part of. I would recommend this program to any expert witness, even if they have participated in cases before. The feedback from the ALJ was amazing and is something that I can’t imagine getting in any other setting.
WIT’s ITC Practice
ITC Report Series
WIT remains dedicated to delivering high-quality, data-driven insights on the ITC and its ALJs to ensure that we continue to provide the most qualified and effective experts for our clients. This year, we released two ITC ALJ reports covering Chief Administrative Law Judge Clark Cheney and Administrative Law Judge Monica Bhattacharyya, advocates for and active participants in the NEXT Advocates Program. In these reports, we examined statistics across numerous categories and compiled insights that offer an exclusive look at each ALJ’s activity with the ITC. Additionally, we released our inaugural ITC report that provides data around 2023’s proceedings at the ITC.
In subsequent ITC reports, we will focus on YoY statistics and each ALJ, providing a detailed view of the judge’s investigations and focus areas while highlighting their behaviors and backgrounds. These will be released throughout the year. Our next report will provide a deep dive into 2024’s ITC investigation data.
How WIT’s Experts Can Assist in ITC Investigations
At WIT, we understand that ITC Investigations can be highly nuanced and have engaged with testifying experts who possess a deep understanding of the major industries and technologies at issue before the Commission. Our ITC Practice features a diverse group of technical and industry experts–from C-suite executives to technology specialists–who are dedicated to supporting our clients in complex matters.
Contact us to learn more about our ITC Practice and how our experts can help your team prepare for a Section 337 Investigation.