Frequently Asked Questions

General Questions

Peer review is a staple in every corner of research. Now, attorneys can use this same tool to find more lines of attack against their opponent's expert and anticipate what the weaknesses lie in their own expert's opinions. Critically, the peer review is independent of the testifying expert so that you get fresh and independent perspective on how to win your case. Attorneys use peer review for the same reason as mock trial or moot court: to improve expert strategy and win.

We offer two types of peer review. Our online Rebutl platform is aimed at getting opposing expert reports critiqued so attorneys can increase their lines of attack and win. The submission process is easy and attorneys can sign up here.

We also offer Custom Peer Review for other use cases. For example, you can use Custom Peer Review to anticipate and address the weaknesses of your own expert reports, support your Daubert/Frye motions with neutral peer reviews, or get and in-depth understanding critical studies the opposition will rely on.

The critical part of peer review is that it is independent and more cost-effective. In short, peer review gives you more information for less cost than most experts traditionally charge. We can do this because our reviewers are researchers who do not usually wish to be involved in litigation but will gladly provide an assessment of reports in a hands-off manner. Further, by getting independent peer reviews, you will gain multiple additional viewpoints that will increase your lines of attack (or defense strategies).
JuriLytics Rebutl has flat pricing that can be seen here. Custom Peer Review pricing is based on an estimate of the amount of time reviewers will spend on the peer review. These reviews can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 per expert report depending on the number of reviewers, length of the expert reports, and the number of questions asked of the reviewers.
No. JuriLytics will have access to confidential information and/or draft reports of experts in many cases. JuriLytics is limited to being associated with only one side in any particular litigation.

Selecting Reviewers

At this time, JuriLytics Rebutl does not offer you to provide any input into who reviews the expert report. Rest assured, the reviewers JuriLytics chooses are top minds in the field.

In Custom Peer Review, depending on the end objective, you may be allowed to provide input into who reviews the reports.

Generally, we will allow you to retain peer reviewers after the review is complete. However, we will charge a nominal "finding fee" for any reviewer who you choose to retain independently.
JuriLytics vets reviewers by asking them to fill out a detailed conflict-of-interest questionnaire and doing independent research to confirm they have not been excluded in court.
Reviewers are asked to provide conflict-of-interest disclosures for a variety of parties, attorneys, and experts. To mask the identity of the actual parties, attorneys, and experts, additional unrelated, but plausible, entities are added to the conflict form. This prevents the potential reviewer from knowing the nature of the engagement prior to engagement.


JuriLytics Rebutl reviews are not discoverable. We are hired as consulting experts who, under Rule 26(b)(4)(D), are generally protected. Our reviews will be given solely to the attorney, who can then advise the testifying expert based upon received feedback.
Custom Peer Reviews are not discoverable. If you disclose them, then it is possible that the peer reviewers will be deposed. If JuriLytics’ reviewers are deposed or otherwise subject to discovery, JuriLytics will retain counsel to represent them. It is important to note that the reviewers will have been fully vetted for conflicts and completed their reviews in a blind manner.
If you wish to use JuriLytics Rebutl to review an opposing expert report under Protective Order, you must use Custom Peer Review at the moment. We will follow the same process and pricing as Rebutl, but will take extra care to ensure Protective Orders are signed and followed.

Court Use

Under virtually all evidence codes, judges are obligated to evaluate the threshold admissibility of proffered expert evidence. Under both Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (and Daubert) and most State codes, this requires judges to either evaluate the reliability and validity of the scientific basis for the evidence or to check whether the scientific opinion or technique offered in court is accepted in the field from which it comes.

JuriLytics Custom Peer Review can be used by courts to answer the questions that judges are obligated to answer.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and most State codes, the answer should be YES! You should be able to cite favorable JuriLytics’ Custom Peer Reviews as support for your position that the expert is (or is not) in line with mainstream standards of good science and is (or is not) accepted among the scientists in the respective field. In order to support this proposition, JuriLytics Custom Peer Reviews need not be separately “admissible as evidence,” because the rules of evidence do not ordinarily apply to pretrial motions or hearings.
Peer reviewers are not testifying experts under FRCP Rule 26. Custom Peer Reviews are only used in pretrial motions and hearings to determine admissibility of a testifying expert. When determining preliminary matters, under FRE Rule 104(a), the court is not bound by the rules of evidence. Use of Custom Peer Reviews in pretrial motions could elicit objection. If judges grant discovery of the peer reviewers, JuriLytics will independently represent them. Of course, attorneys should check their respective state rules for contrary practice when necessary.