There’s a built-in design paradox. How does a judge assess an expert in a field where he is not one? There’s probably some improvement that comes from experience but it’s not perfect.
Opposing lawyers have an incentive to help the judge. Of course the lawyers will lie, but they still will point out important details for the judge to look at.
Qualifications=academics usually & career experience. No way to know if they actually learned something and aren’t a fraud. Even corporations that do thousands of interviews get duped
