• Financial Forensics - Litigation Consulting - QuickRead Top Story - Valuation/Appraisal

    A Collision Course in Evidentiary Standards for AI-Assisted Financial Forensics

    February 11, 2026

    How a New Proposed Rule of Evidence Seeks to Admit AI Analysis and Supplant Experts On January 30, 2026, Anthropic released legal plugins for its Claude AI that automate contract review, compliance tracking, and legal analysis. Within three days, $285 billion in market value evaporated from legal software and publishing companies. This was not a correction. It was a signal. The AI companies are no longer content selling infrastructure, now they are coming for the legal, financial, and forensic analysis applications themselves. The author discusses the legal and practical repercussions that the new Federal Rule of Evidence would have on…

  • QuickRead Top Story - Valuation/Appraisal

    The Hybrid Approach to Determining Company Specific Risk Using Monte Carlo

    September 13, 2023

    A Case Study In articles published in The Value Examiner, “A Hybrid Approach to Estimating Company Specific Risk,” and “A Hybrid Approach to Determining Company Specific Risk: Using Monte Carlo Simulation,” the author explains the theoretical basis for using a company specific risk premium in the build-up method and presents a methodology for developing the company specific risk premium. Then he shows how to incorporate Monte Carlo simulation into the model. The model is a variation of David Wood’s MUM for allocating personal and business goodwill and the risk rate component model. The following article is a review of some…

  • Case Law - QuickRead Top Story

    Legal Update

    August 2, 2023

    FRE 702—Challenging the Expert Witness: White Buffalo Environmental, Inc. v. Hungry Horse, LLC In modern litigation, expert witnesses have become nearly indispensable. As a result, motions to preclude those experts from testifying are almost inevitable. With the forthcoming amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 clarifying both which party bears the burden of proof on challenging expert testimony and the court’s obligations as gatekeeper, White Buffalo Environmental, Inc. v. Hungry Horse, LLC is a worthwhile reminder of what constitutes a valid basis to move to exclude a damages expert and, perhaps more to the point, what does not. This article…

  • Expert Witness - QuickRead Featured

    Methodology

    July 13, 2016

    Will Your Methodology be up to Snuff? Beyond Frye and Daubert (Part IV of VII) The methodology employed by the expert is a critical factor determining the admissibility of the testimony. Frye, Daubert, and Kumho provide guidance regarding the admissibility of the testimony. In this article, the author discusses these and recent cases, including: Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; United States v. Alabama Power Company; United States v. Cinergy Corp., to illustrate the how courts have decided motions to exclude.

  • Litigation Consulting - QuickRead Featured

    Evaluating the Valuation Expert

    March 9, 2016

    Challenges and the Emergence of Peer Review Judges are often required to pick apart complicated expert analysis to assess the validity and reliability of an expert’s work when its admissibility is challenged. But in the professional domain, we would not expect a tax auditor to be able to analyze a report on macroeconomic theory. Why, then, do we ask courts to perform these analyses in fields from accounting to zoology? It stands to reason our courts need help. We propose that litigators and experts now have the chance to help courts, and in the process, serve their clients better. Litigators…

  • QuickRead Featured - QuickRead Top Story - Valuation/Appraisal

    Calculations and Opinions: Bringing Clarity to a Cloudy Issue

    September 10, 2014

    Opinions are like viewpoints; everyone has one Opinions are often provided in connection with calculation values and a conclusion of value. SSVS No. 1 does not prohibit or explicitly endorse either. In this article, Jim Hitchner shares his views on whether the term “opinion”―offered in a litigation or non-litigation engagement—should be used as part of the engagement or offered in connection with a calculated value.