The Expertise Mirage: Over-Confident IT Staff and the Verification Gap

Contributed by Kris Carlson, COO, Former ICAC Commander, and Digital Forensics Investigator/Testifying Expert

Why “Good With Computers” Isn’t Good Enough Anymore (and Never Really Has Been!)

In discovery conferences, executives still hear a familiar refrain: “Our sys-admin can just image the laptop.”. That comfort sentence quietly ignores two hard facts:

1. Forensic science is an evidence discipline, not an IT chore. Under the amended Federal Rule 702, the party proffering digital evidence must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its expert applied reliable methods to sufficient facts.
2. Courts will punish amateur mistakes. When a self-taught technologist handled collections in DR Distributors v. 21 Century Smoking, the judge ultimately awarded the plaintiffs US $2.5 million in fees, after a 104-page sanctions order catalogued every misstep.

The lesson is simple: talent without verifiable expertise can be more expensive than a robust credentialing program.

What Counts as “Qualified” Under Rule 702?

“A witness who is qualified as an expert … may testify only if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the witness applied reliable principles and methods.” — Fed. R. Evid. 702 (Dec 1, 2023)

The amended language puts the burden squarely on the party offering the evidence. Education, training, and/or experience must be shown, not assumed. When the résumé or CV refers only to the “expert’s” title  (e.g., “Senior Network Engineer”), counsel inherits an uphill battle establishing more likely than not that the witness applied reliable principles and methods.

Real-World Fallout

• Spoliation risk: Misconfigured or improperly used imaging tools can alter relevant metadata or miss relevant (inculpatory or exculpatory) data altogether.
• Increased motion drag: Opposing experts are given ample opportunity to shift the focus away from the data and put the crosshairs squarely on the collector’s qualifications.  Even if the data is relevant and damaging, the court may never have an opportunity to see it!
• Settlement leverage: The side with defensible methods is in a better position to offer evidence that will withstand scrutiny and may, in turn, have greater leverage in settlement negotiations.

Surveying the Certification Landscape

Although not mandatory to provide expert testimony and verifiable collection and analysis of digital evidence, industry-accepted digital forensics certifications provide the court with an objective yardstick under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard.  Certifications, at least on their face, signal that an expert has achieved an acceptable level of knowledge as it relates to the particular certification.   Certifications such as GCFA, GCFE, and CFCE, among others, require rigorous practical exams that map each acquisition, analysis, and reporting step to specific industry standards.

In short, they serve as shorthand proof of competence, sharply reduce the chance of exclusion during a qualifications hearing, and blunt cross-examination attacks that often disqualify ill-prepared witnesses.  Furthermore, because certification curricula evolve in response to cloud artifacts, mobile devices, and emerging AI-generated data, maintaining these certifications also demonstrates continuous professional development, which reassures judges and juries, narrows the issues to the evidence itself, and ultimately ensures that digital findings are admitted, trusted, and persuasive.

Building a Defensible Expertise Pipeline

Map tasks to credentials. Require at least one industry-accepted certification for anyone who will image drives, acquire cloud data, or draft expert reports.

The Business Case At a Glance — Certification vs. Crisis

Before approving another line-item for training, most CFOs ask the same question: “Show me the ROI.”
Digital forensics certifications deliver a return by eliminating the hidden costs of redoing work, motions, and reputational damage. Stack the numbers side-by-side, and the calculus is clear:

*Figures exclude normal salary ranges, which vary by region.

Case study: DR Distributors v. 21 Century Smoking

When a self-taught technologist handled the e-discovery in DR Distributors, a single sanctions order eventually cost the defendant US $2.5 million in fee awards, to be split with former counsel, after the court catalogued “cataclysmic” discovery failures. (clarkhill.com) Training would have cost less than one-quarter of one percent of that total and preserved the legal team’s credibility.

Bottom line: a modest, planned investment in certified expertise saves seven-figure crises later. In the language of finance, certification is not an expense; it is a risk-transfer instrument that turns unpredictable litigation costs into a fixed, budgetable premium.

Case study: After the DR Distributors sanctions order, both the defendant and outside counsel faced fee awards, remedial education mandates, and reputational harm—none of which would have occurred had a certified examiner managed the data at the outset.

2. Make renewal non-negotiable. EnCE holders, for instance, must log 32 CPE hours every three years to stay current.
3. Separate roles. Let certified third-party labs collect; allow in-house IT to focus on remediation and business continuity.
4. Inject human-factor controls. Adopt NIST-recommended anonymous peer review before reports leave the lab.
5. Audit vendors. ISO 17024 Clause 8 demands ongoing scheme validation. Ask every outside provider when its last accreditation review occurred and request the certificate number.

An executive-level checklist

• Who signs the affidavit? A practitioner whose credentials predate the collection and remain active.
• Can we prove impartiality? Yes, we maintain chain-of-custody logs, peer-review notes, and dual-custodian verification.
• How often are tools validated? ‐ At each major version and annually thereafter, with reports archived for seven years.

Closing thought

Digital evidence is only as strong as the professional who collects it. In 2025, “good with computers” no longer clears the reliability bar. Credentials rooted in accepted industry standards give the bench—and your clients—the assurance they now demand. Invest in expertise before the next collection, or budget for sanctions after it. The choice is yours.

About the author: Kris Carlson is a court-qualified digital forensics expert and COO of LCG Discovery & Governance. He holds EnCE, ACE, and GCFA certifications and has testified in state and federal courts across the United States.