Most valuation experts working in litigation know at least this much about Daubert: It requires expert testimony to be relevant, reliable, and helpful to the jury. But far fewer have read the case or know what it’s about and how it came about. Yet, this case rightly qualifies as a landmark decision, and understanding its importance is a prerequisite to surviving an admissibility challenge.

Also, what about the case preceding Daubert, Frye v. United States, which still sets the standard of admissibility in a handful of states? How do Frye and Daubert differ, and what role does Federal Rule of Evidence 702 play in terms of admissibility of expert testimony?

In an informative article that recently appeared in California Lawyer, Frank A. Wisehart (RGL Forensics), a San Francisco-based forensic accountant and business valuator, provides a concise and eminently readable history of the three key pieces that have come to set down the rules of admissibility of expert testimony in federal court.

Readers can find it here.