“Two weeks” sounds like a marketing promise. It is not. It is an operational schedule. Here is what actually happens on each day.
Why process transparency matters
Litigators adapt quickly to experts being a black box: materials go in, an opinion comes out three weeks later, and they discover that the question answered is not quite the question that was asked.
A productized engagement model — with a specific timeline, defined checkpoints, and interim findings — solves three problems at once: counsel always knows where the case stands; findings undergo an early reality check before they reach the final opinion; and the court’s timetable is respected.
Day 1: Intake call and confirmation of the expert question
A 45–60-minute call with the handling lawyer. The purpose is not introductory — it is to formulate precisely the technical question the opinion must answer.
This is not a formality. Most software disputes arrive with imprecise questions: “Did the system work?” is a question that cannot be answered. “Did the system implement the requirements in clauses 4.1 through 4.7 of the version 2.3 specification?” — that is a question that can be answered, substantiated, and defended in cross-examination.
At the close of the intake call: a one-page written summary defining the expert question, the materials required, and what the opinion will not cover.
Days 2–4: Receipt and review of materials
Every item received — source code, logs, specification documents, pleadings, prior opinions if any — is entered on a numbered list with version, date of receipt, and completeness status.
Initial assessment: is the material sufficient to answer the question? If not — this is the moment to report it, not on day 13. If code from a specific version is missing, if log files are absent for the relevant time window, if there is a gap in the documentation — it is raised as a question to counsel now, while there is still time to resolve it.
Days 5–9: The technical analysis
The longest phase. The methodology is documented before analysis begins — not after. This means the analysis is performed against a written protocol, not on the basis of professional instincts.
An example from a dispute between a mid-scale Israeli technology company and an international platform vendor: the question was whether a defect in the integration layer caused transaction losses over a specific period. The analysis protocol comprised: first, building a reproduction environment on infrastructure identical to production; second, running transaction scenarios with and without the patch the vendor claimed had resolved the issue; third, comparing log outputs against production data from the disputed period. Findings were documented exactly as collected — including findings that supported the vendor’s position on certain points.
Day 9: Interim findings report
A short call (20–30 minutes) with counsel. Not an opinion — a verbal summary of the key findings to date. This is a critical checkpoint: if findings are surprising, counsel knows now, not when the opinion is delivered.
Important: the interim call is not an opportunity to change findings. It is an opportunity to confirm that the question originally asked is still precise, and that the material provided is indeed sufficient.
Days 10–12: Drafting the opinion
The opinion is written in Hebrew from the outset. The standard structure:
- Background and appointment — who retained the expert, what was agreed to be examined, and what was not.
- Materials examined — the numbered list from the first phase.
- Methodology — step-by-step detail of how the analysis was conducted.
- Findings — with a specific reference to the source material for each finding.
- Answer to the expert question — a direct sentence: “Based on the analysis above, the answer to the question asked is…”
- Qualifications and limitations — what could not be examined, and why.
- Expert declaration — in the form required under Israeli law.
Day 13: Review and revision
Counsel receives the draft. Their role at this stage is to check facts (names, dates, quotations from pleadings) — not to change findings. A finding that changes at the draft stage requires an explanation of why.
Day 14: Signing and delivery
The final opinion is signed and delivered to counsel in a secured PDF format. Alongside it, a companion file is provided: the materials index — a list of every file examined, with a hash for integrity verification.
What is not included in the two weeks
Two weeks runs from intake to signed opinion. Oral testimony — examination-in-chief, cross-examination, preliminary hearings — is a separate component scheduled according to the court’s timetable, not the engagement’s.
A supplementary opinion — if the opposing party files a counter-opinion that requires a response — is also an additional phase, not part of the initial two weeks.
What this gives counsel
A productized working method is not only a logistical consideration. It is a legal one:
- Interim findings on day 9 allow counsel to make strategic decisions before the opinion is filed — including the decision whether to continue to trial or seek settlement.
- Documented methodology makes the opinion more resistant in cross-examination.
- A clear timeline allows pre-trial proceedings to be planned with confidence.
Identifying details have been changed; the scenarios reflect patterns from actual engagements.
Interested in how an engagement begins? Tech Expert Opinion — two-week turnaround sets out the requirements. Contact us to book a 30-minute intro call.