Services Built Around Litigation, Not Just Investigation
Every internet defamation matter is different, but the underlying technical questions tend to fall into a handful of recurring categories. The service areas below reflect where I spend the majority of my engagement time, and each is built with an eye toward how the resulting evidence and analysis will hold up in litigation, not just toward answering the question in the abstract.
Ways Counsel Typically Retains Me
Expert Witness & Litigation Support
Retained by plaintiff's or defense counsel to investigate, document, and testify on the technical aspects of an internet defamation matter, including evidence authentication, platform behavior, and damages.
Pre-Litigation Investigation
Engaged before a complaint is filed to determine what evidence realistically exists, whether an anonymous poster can be identified, and what a matter is likely worth — informing the decision of whether and how to proceed.
Rebuttal & Second-Opinion Review
Retained to review opposing counsel's expert report, evidence file, or damages theory and provide an independent technical assessment, including rebuttal reports where warranted.
Client Reputation Recovery Referral
Coordinated, through Hartzer Consulting, for clients who need search result cleanup or ongoing monitoring alongside or after their litigation matter.
Litigation-Ready From the Start
A significant share of the internet defamation cases I review as a second opinion or rebuttal expert share a common weakness: the underlying investigation wasn't conducted with litigation in mind. Screenshots without visible timestamps or URLs, evidence gathered after content had already changed, or attribution theories built on correlation without a defensible methodology all create vulnerabilities that a competent opposing expert will find and exploit.
Every engagement I take on is structured from day one around the standard the evidence and analysis will ultimately need to meet: documented methodology, a clear chain of custody, and conclusions that are explainable in plain language to a judge or jury without oversimplifying the underlying technical reality.
Getting Started
The most productive starting point is usually a direct conversation about the matter: what's already been gathered, what the theory of the case is, and what technical questions still need answers. From there I can outline realistic scope, timeline, and fees.