New resource page demonstrates’ courts repeated misapplication of expert evidence admissibility standards, encourages public to submit comments supporting proposed reforms 

Arlington, VA – August 9 – Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) – Today, Lawyers for Civil Justice launched a new web portal focused on expert evidence reform, Don’t Say Daubert, highlighting the need for amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The launch of the web portal comes as the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules invites public comments on a proposed amendment to FRE 702 that would clarify the long-misinterpreted standards for expert evidence admissibility in U.S. federal courts.

Since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the word “Daubert” has become a de facto shorthand for the standard by which expert evidence is evaluated for admissibility before a federal civil jury. However, it’s actually Federal FRE 702, not Daubert, sets the standards that courts must follow in determining whether expert testimony is admissible.  

“No matter how you pronounce it, the famous Daubert Supreme Court case doesn’t set the standards for expert evidence admissibility – Rule 702 does,” LCJ General Counsel Alex Dahl said. “The amendment process is a perfect time to get rid of the inaccurate slang by articulating ‘Rule 702’ as the proper standard for admitting expert testimony before a jury. We strongly encourage members of the public to submit comments in support of this important rule to clarify the standards for expert evidence in U.S. courts and bring greater fairness to our civil justice system.” 

The web portal outlines the history behind expert evidence admissibility standards shows that the all-too-common invocation of “the Daubert standard” should be discarded and replaced with “the Rule 702 standard.” 

“It’s more than just semantics,” the site reads. “The use of ‘Daubert’ instead of ‘Rule 702’ affects people’s understanding of what standards apply to those motions. The widespread misunderstanding of expert evidence admissibility standards in both trial and appellate courts within every federal circuit have led to decisions that are patently incompatible with Rule 702 – namely, the erroneous notion that fundamental questions about the basis of expert opinions go to the weight given to the testimony by the jury, rather than its admissibility by the court.” 

The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules opened its six-month public comment period on Friday, August 6. To learn why FRE 702 needs to be amended and how to submit a comment on the proposed rulemaking, visit www.DontSayDaubert.com.