The winter 2026 issue of ABA's excellent publication Litigation Journal contains an article that caught my eye: “Defending Depositions: Practical Tips for Helping Your Witness Know What to Say and What Not to Say” by Sameer Advani. While depositions are a routine feature of civil litigation, their execution remains uneven. I read it with great interest because expert testimony is such a significant part of KCIC’s services, and I am a veteran of at least 30 depositions. The piece argues that too often, outcomes turn not on the facts themselves, but on how those facts are communicated under oath. The article focuses on this gap, offering a clear and practical framework for thinking about deposition testimony. 

In the piece, Advani addresses a deceptively simple question: How should a witness answer questions under oath? The central contribution is to reframe that question in a way that practitioners would do well to adopt — by focusing not on what a witness should say, but on what a witness should avoid saying. 

A Controlled Process of Information Gathering 

In my own experience, this is where most depositions go wrong.  But as I wrote about in the previous blog post “Expert Testimony – The Waiting Game,” testimony is not a natural form of communication. Instead, it is an unnatural form of speech where opposing counsel is actively seeking soundbites, inconsistencies, or admissions that can later be used out of context. The article correctly situates the deposition within its proper role. It is not a trial, nor is it an opportunity for advocacy; it’s a controlled process of information gathering. That distinction is critical. Witnesses who approach a deposition as a forum to explain, persuade, or “help” their counsel frequently create problems that did not previously exist. In other words, the risk in a deposition is not always what is asked, but what is volunteered. 

This framing helps explain why even highly capable professionals struggle in deposition settings. Considerable time is spent preparing witnesses on substance while less time is spent instilling the discipline required to answer questions narrowly, accurately, and without unnecessary elaboration. As I noted in that same blog, the discipline to pause, consider the question, and resist the pressure to respond reflexively is not intuitive, but it is essential. 

Restraint is Key 

The instinct to be helpful should be avoided. This is a hard lesson for me personally. As an experienced management consultant, being helpful is the bread and butter of my business. In another previous blog post referenced in “Expert Testimony – Be Prepared for Anything,” I address mental preparation, which requires anticipating not just the expected lines of questioning, but also the unexpected ones. Cross-examination rarely proceeds in a straight line, and witnesses who are unprepared for shifts in tone, framing, or subject matter are more likely to overcorrect either by saying too much or by answering imprecisely. This often results in witnesses giving answers that are technically correct but strategically damaging.  

The core principle advanced by Advani’s article is that effective testimony requires restraint. In my experience, this principle is both well-founded and underemphasized. Answering only the question asked sounds straightforward, but it can run counter to natural instincts. Many witnesses, particularly senior executives and technical professionals, are conditioned to provide context and completeness. In the deposition setting, those instincts must be carefully managed. Overlong answers, speculation, and attempts to anticipate where questioning is headed introduce ambiguity and expand the record in ways that are difficult to control after the fact. 

Preparation is Critical 

From a practitioner’s standpoint, these are not theoretical concerns. A single imprecise or unnecessarily expansive answer can become the focal point of motion practice, expert analysis, or cross-examination at trial. It is impossible to manage that risk without first recognizing that brevity and precision are not limitations. They are strategies. An expert may never recover from being found “incredible.” The stakes are very high. 

The article appropriately emphasizes that witness preparation is not a one-size-fits-all exercise. Different witnesses present different risks. A fact witness with limited exposure to the litigation process requires a different approach than a seasoned executive or a technical expert. Effective preparation begins with understanding those differences and calibrating instruction accordingly. What remains constant, however, is the need for discipline in how answers are delivered. 

Another aspect of witness preparation that I also appreciate is the role of practice to set up the witness for success. Being a witness is stressful. We all want to do well and assist the case and the court as well as our clients. Multiple rounds of practice questioning should be a non-negotiable, including with a different lawyer — one not involved in the preparation. Apart from a couple of noteworthy examples, the lawyers handling me have generally been very effective. Nevertheless, my advice to my less experienced colleagues is not to over rely on counsel for their preparations but to get themselves ready. I also offer guidance when it is requested such as anticipating the areas that may be picked at in the usual attempts to disqualify the witness.  

The strength of Advani’s article for the ABA lies in its clarity and practical focus. It does not attempt to reinvent deposition practice. Rather, it articulates a set of principles that experienced practitioners will recognize, though inconsistently apply. In doing so, Advani provides a useful reminder that execution, not theory, is what ultimately determines outcomes in this setting. 

The bottom line is straightforward. Effective deposition testimony is not about saying more; it is about saying only what is necessary, and no more. That may sound obvious, but in practice it is a discipline that is rarely mastered and frequently outcome-determinative.