A Repeatable, Evidence-First Process
Every expert witness engagement follows a consistent, evidence-first process designed to produce findings that hold up under scrutiny. Rather than starting from a conclusion and working backward, Bill starts with the available technical evidence — search data, DNS and registrar records, analytics logs, advertising account histories, or content and platform data — and builds an analysis from what that evidence actually shows.
This matters because internet and digital marketing disputes are unusually vulnerable to conclusions that sound plausible but are not actually supported by the underlying data. A ranking drop that looks like agency negligence may be a documented algorithm update; a domain that appears stolen may have been transferred through a legitimate but poorly communicated process. Getting the sequence of events right, before forming an opinion about it, is the foundation of defensible expert witness work.
The Process
Evidence Identification
Determining what technical records exist and are relevant — search data, DNS/WHOIS history, analytics logs, account records, or platform content.
Verification & Authentication
Confirming that evidence is what it purports to be, and identifying gaps, inconsistencies, or spoliation concerns.
Timeline Reconstruction
Establishing an accurate, dated sequence of events from the verified evidence.
Analysis & Reporting
Forming and documenting opinions that are directly traceable back to the underlying evidence.
What Makes the Analysis Reliable
Bill's methodology is built to satisfy the reliability requirements courts apply to expert testimony under the Daubert standard: a testable, consistently applied methodology, reliance on data that can be independently verified, and conclusions that follow logically from that data rather than from assumption. Reports document not just conclusions but the specific evidence and reasoning behind them, so opposing counsel and the court can evaluate the analysis on its merits.
This consistency matters just as much during cross-examination as it does when a report is first drafted. An opinion built on a documented, repeatable process holds up when opposing counsel probes it point by point, in a way that an opinion based on general impression or experience alone typically does not.