Our Mission and Founding

Several years ago, I tried a case involving whole-cell pertussis vaccine. The plaintiff was an infant of four or five months with a history of seizures, who was given a whole cell pertussis vaccination. Her brain, it was later discovered, was profoundly damaged. The cause of her neurological disorder was unclear. The questions posed at trial were whether it was improper to administer the vaccine in view of the seizures and whether the vaccine caused the seizures.

In opposition to the defendant's fully credentialed experts, the plaintiff called a scientist I would consider borderline, under Daubert, in terms of expert credentials. He had the proper degrees and had done some research, but he had published nothing on the subject and had entered the field at the request of plaintiff's attorney. He relied wholly upon secondary sources--a large number of published articles--to prepare himself for cross-examination.

The jury found, nevertheless, for the plaintiff. As a profoundly disabled child, her case was, obviously, very compelling. At that point, I set aside the verdict, taking into account all of the evidence, including the inadequacy, in my view, of the proof presented by the plaintiff's expert. Yet, it was somewhat disquieting not to be able to reach out to the scientific community to obtain an expert who could testify as a “neutral authority” in court.

The second thing that troubled me was that when the case was over, I felt that impartial scientists who knew the field might well agree that the expert retained by the plaintiff should not be allowed to testify on this subject again. I did not know, however, what, if anything, I could do about this. There was no acceptable mechanism for contacting the relevant professional organizations, nor did I have any assurance that those organizations would have been receptive to my communications.(emphasis added)

--Judge Jack Weinstein, Science and the Challenges of Expert Testimony in the Courtroom, 77 Oregon Law Review, 1005, 1009 (1998).

Our Team

  • David FaigmanDavid FaigmanCo-Founder and CEO

    David Faigman is Acting Chancellor and Dean at UC Hastings and Professor, UCSF School of Medicine. He has published numerous books and articles concerning the use, or failure to use, scientific research in legal decision‐making. He has been cited several times by the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Faigman also lectures widely to judges and lawyers, and served on a panel for the National Academies of Science investigating the scientific validity of the polygraph.

  • Amit LakhaniAmit LakhaniCo-Founder and President

    Amit Lakhani is an electrical engineer and computer scientist that has been involved in, and/or provided, expert opinions on a range of cases involving electrical engineering issues. He obtained his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences from U.C. Berkeley as well as a Management of Technology certificate from Haas Business School. Before co-founding JuriLytics, he was a Senior Engineer at Exponent, Inc., a scientific consulting firm. He has experience in web-design and data analytics.

  • Mary Kay KaneMary Kay KaneBoard Member

    Mary Kay Kane is Emerita Dean and Chancellor, and Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Hastings. Dean Kane has served as President of the Association of American Law Schools, and as a member of the Standing Committee on Practice and Procedure for the United States Judicial Conference and the Council of the ABA Selection on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. She currently serves as a member of the Council of the American Law Institute and the Board of the International Association of Law Schools. She has written extensively in the area of federal civil procedure.

  • Grande LumGrande LumSenior Advisor

    Grande Lum is Director of the Divided Community Project at the Ohio State University Moritz School of Law and Research Fellow and Lecturer at Stanford Law School’s Gould Center for Conflict Resolution. Previously, Grande Lum was appointed by President Obama (with senate confirmation) as the Director of the Community Relations Service (CRS) inside the DOJ. His agency was involved in critical community conflicts regarding race and law enforcement including the tragedies in Sanford, Florida; Ferguson, Missouri; and Baltimore, Maryland.