How to Hire a Forensic Engineer: A Guide for Attorneys

Why the Search for a Forensic Engineer Usually Starts Too Late

Most calls I get start the same way: a slab has cracked, a balcony has collapsed, or a roof has failed after a storm, and someone on the legal or claims side needs a forensic engineer within days, not weeks. The problem is that finding a qualified forensic engineer under deadline pressure is very different from finding a good structural designer. A forensic engineer's job isn't to design something new — it's to reconstruct what happened to something that already failed, using physical evidence, code history, and material testing, then defend that opinion under cross-examination.

I've been retained on both sides of this equation — by plaintiff's counsel building a construction defect claim and by carriers defending a denial. What I've learned is that the engineers who get discredited on the stand usually weren't incompetent; they were the wrong fit for the specific failure mode, or they skipped steps that a jury or judge later picked apart. Choosing the right forensic engineer is a risk-management decision as much as a technical one, and it deserves more diligence than most law firms and adjusters give it.

What Actually Separates a Forensic Engineer from a Design Engineer

A licensed P.E. who designs buildings all day is not automatically qualified to investigate why one failed. Design engineering is prospective — you're sizing members against code minimums with safety factors built in. Forensic work is retrospective and evidentiary. You're working backward from spalled concrete, cracked masonry, or a collapsed roof deck to determine cause, timeline, and responsibility, and every finding has to survive Daubert or Frye scrutiny.

That distinction shows up in methodology. A forensic engineer should be able to walk you through a documented investigation protocol — often referencing ASTM E620 (Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Technical Experts) — that includes site documentation, chain-of-custody for samples, material testing, code and standard-of-care research specific to the construction date, and a clearly separated facts-versus-opinion section in the report. If the engineer you're interviewing can't describe this process without prompting, that's a warning sign, not a formality.

Credentials That Actually Matter (and Ones That Don't)

State licensure (P.E.) is the baseline, not the differentiator — it's required to practice engineering and to sign a sealed report, but it says nothing about forensic competence. What matters more is documented case history in the specific failure mode at issue. An engineer who has testified twenty times about roof truss failures is not automatically qualified to opine on post-tensioned parking garage corrosion, and a good expert will tell you that themselves rather than stretch their scope.

When I'm vetting a co-expert or a referral for another jurisdiction, I look for board certification (such as the ACFE or NAFE affiliations), a publication or presentation history in the relevant failure category, and prior deposition or trial transcripts I can request and read. Ask directly: how many times has this engineer been excluded or had opinions struck, and why? A refusal to answer, or a vague answer, tells you something.

• State P.E. license active and in good standing in the jurisdiction where the property sits
• Documented case history in the specific failure type — foundation, envelope, fire, wind, structural collapse
• Willingness to produce prior deposition/trial transcripts on request
• Membership or certification through recognized forensic bodies, not just general engineering societies
• A clear, written scope of work before site work begins

A Real Case: What Happens When the Wrong Scope Gets Signed Off

A mid-rise parking structure in the Southeast, built in 1998 with post-tensioned slabs, developed visible efflorescence and spalling across roughly 380 square feet of the second-level deck. The owner's initial consultant — a general structural engineer with no post-tensioning forensic background — attributed it to 'normal aging' and recommended cosmetic patching, a $40,000 fix. Litigation followed after a tenant's vehicle was damaged by falling concrete.

When I was retained by defense counsel to review the file, ground-penetrating radar and chloride ion testing told a different story: chloride content at the tendon depth measured 4.2 lb per cubic yard of concrete, well above the 1.0–2.0 lb/yd³ corrosion-initiation threshold referenced in ACI 222R. Petrographic analysis confirmed carbonation-induced corrosion had already section-lost several tendons by an estimated 15–20%. The original consultant had never tested chloride content or inspected a single tendon — he had eyeballed cracking and called it aging. The case settled for $2.3 million, and remediation, once scoped correctly, ran to $1.8 million rather than the original $40,000 patch estimate. The lesson for counsel: an engineer's conclusion is only as good as the testing protocol behind it, and the wrong initial expert can cost a client seven figures in mis-scoped remediation before litigation even starts.

Red Flags in a Forensic Engineer's Proposal or Report

I read a lot of opposing reports, and the weak ones share patterns. Watch for conclusions that aren't tied to a specific testing method or measurement — 'consistent with age-related deterioration' without any material data behind it is an opinion looking for evidence, not evidence supporting an opinion. Watch also for reports that skip the applicable code edition entirely; standard of care has to be evaluated against the code and industry standards in effect at the time of design and construction, not today's code.

Fee structure can be a tell too. An engineer who quotes a flat fee contingent on a particular outcome, or who won't put scope and hourly rates in writing before mobilizing, is exposing your case to a bias challenge later. Legitimate forensic engineering is billed on time and materials against a defined scope, full stop.

Evidence Preservation and the Spoliation Trap

One of the most common ways attorneys lose ground before litigation even starts is by letting a site get repaired, cleaned, or demolished before an engineer documents it. Once a damaged parapet is torn down or a wet crawlspace is dried out and remediated, physical evidence — crack widths, moisture readings, material samples — is gone permanently, and courts do not look kindly on spoliation regardless of intent.

If there's any chance of a claim or suit, get a forensic engineer on site before repairs begin, even for a limited documentation visit. I've had cases turn entirely on a single photograph of a crack width measured with a comparator card before someone patched it. This is also where coordinating with litigation and expert witness support early — rather than after a complaint is filed — pays off, because the engineer can advise counsel on what to preserve, not just what to test.

Engagement Models: Independent Review vs. Full Investigation

Not every matter needs a ground-up forensic investigation. Sometimes what's needed is a second set of eyes on an existing report — an independent engineering review — to test whether the original conclusions hold up before deciding whether to litigate or settle. This is typically faster and cheaper, often two to four weeks and a fraction of a full investigation's cost, and it's useful for adjusters trying to evaluate whether a claim's engineering support is defensible.

A full investigation, by contrast, involves site inspection, destructive or non-destructive testing, laboratory analysis, and a sealed report suitable for litigation — this is the right call for construction defect matters, major casualty losses, or anything headed toward deposition. Ask any candidate engineer to scope both options for you; a firm that only offers one flavor of engagement is telling you something about its business model, not necessarily your case's needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between a forensic engineer and a structural engineer?

A structural engineer typically designs new structures or additions, sizing members to meet code minimums going forward. A forensic engineer investigates why an existing structure or component failed, working backward from physical evidence — cracking patterns, material degradation, deflection — to determine cause, timeline, and responsibility, and prepares findings to withstand legal scrutiny.

How much does it cost to hire a forensic engineer?

Most reputable forensic engineers bill hourly, typically $175–$350 per hour depending on region and specialty, with site inspections often billed as a half-day or full-day rate plus testing costs. A limited independent review can run a few thousand dollars, while a full investigation with lab testing and litigation support can reach $15,000–$75,000 or more depending on complexity.

Can a forensic engineer's report be challenged or excluded from a case?

Yes. Reports get excluded under Daubert or Frye standards when the engineer's methodology isn't tied to recognized testing protocols, when conclusions aren't supported by data, or when the expert has no documented experience in the specific failure mode at issue. This is exactly why credentialing and methodology matter more than a general engineering license.

How quickly do I need to get a forensic engineer on site after a failure?

As soon as possible, ideally before any repairs, cleanup, or demolition occurs. Physical evidence like crack widths, moisture content, and corrosion extent degrades or disappears once remediation starts, and courts can penalize parties for spoliation even when it wasn't intentional. If repairs can't wait, at minimum get documentation — photographs, measurements, samples — before work begins.

Do I need a forensic engineer licensed in the state where the property is located?

Generally yes for the report to carry a valid engineering seal and for testimony to be accepted without challenge, though many firms hold multi-state licensure or work with a licensed engineer of record in each jurisdiction. Confirm active licensure in the property's state before retaining anyone, and ask how they handle cross-state or federal matters if the case involves multiple properties.