The Expanding Role of the Counselor as a Vocational Expert Witness

Counselor Competency in the Courtroom

“…First and foremost: The counselor-witness role in the courtroom is that of an educator rather than client advocate (Deutsch & Parker, 1985;Krieshok, 1987). While the attorney directs case strategy and marshals relevant facts to construct an effective case, the job of the counselor-witness is to educate the jury, the judge, and third parties about the counseling profession and the impact of the client's condition on present and future functioning abilities (Deutsch & Parker, 1985;Neff, 1982;Weikel, 1986). Although some lawyers may ask the witness to slant testimony, the counselor must be an impartial witness, stating the facts as honestly and objectively as possible, no matter who the retaining party may be.…”

“…The expert witness helps the "trier of fact"-the judge or jury-make a just determination by providing in readily understandable terms accurate data and a clear and realistic picture of client needs (Broder, 1987;Deutsch & Parker, 1985). This process of rendering an "opinion" derives from analysis of the case, including a review of relevant facts and case records, drawing the requisite inferences, and making appropriate interpretations (Huckins, 1968;Krieshok, 1987;Weikel, 1986). The fact witness, often a physician or psychotherapist, testifies about what he or she knows, has observed, or believes to be true about actual events involving the diagnosis, treatment or counseling mode, and progress of the client in the case.…”

“…The most important rule when answering questions is to remain within one's scope of expertise and avoid elaborating beyond the immediate scope of the specific question (Weikel, 1986). Simple yes-or-no questions require a simple yes-or-no answer (Neff, 1982).…”

“…Summary. Although counselors may be routinely tempted to comment on sundry medical and psychological matters, they should carefully limit responses to what is known and avoid stating personal reactions (Neff, 1982;Weikel, 1986). Doing otherwise only weakens professional credibility and could open up a range of possible questions for opposing counsel to use in trying to impeach the testimony (Deutsch & Parker, 1985).…”

“…In short: The opposing attorney will try to discredit the witness or weaken the testimony. This is perfectly legitimate; this is what attorneys are paid to do-to represent their client (Weikel, 1986). However, the opposing attorney may waive the right of cross-examination if: (a) the counselorwitness's testimony failed to harm his or her case, (b) further questioning would only strengthen the opposing side's case, or (c) further questioning appears pointless or counterproductive (Humphreys, 1987;Neff, 1982).…”