Why Tradespeople Rarely Make Effective Experts in Construction Litigation, and why “they fixed it, so they must know” is a dangerous assumption

In residential construction trade litigation, attorneys routinely turn to licensed tradespeople—plumbers, electricians, HVAC technicians, roofers, and similar contractors—with the expectation that technical competence in the field translates into competence as an expert. In practice, this assumption frequently proves false.

This article addresses a recurring and underappreciated problem in construction litigation: most tradespeople are capable of inspecting and repairing work, but are neither willing nor qualified to function as litigation experts. The distinction matters, and misunderstanding it routinely undermines otherwise viable cases.

Tradespeople Are Trained to Fix Problems, Not Analyze Them

Licensed trades are operational disciplines. A plumber’s training emphasizes restoring service. An electrician’s training emphasizes safety and functionality. An HVAC technician’s training emphasizes performance and efficiency. None of these disciplines inherently require:

• Identifying which code edition applied at the time of original installation

• Distinguishing mandatory code provisions from best practices or manufacturer preferences

• Articulating standard of care versus “how I would have done it”

• Preserving opinions within the confines of admissible expert testimony

As a result, many tradespeople can accurately identify what is wrong but cannot reliably explain why it is wrong in a legally defensible way.

That gap becomes critical the moment a case moves beyond repair and into litigation.

The Written Expert Report Is the Primary Failure Point

One of the most common outcomes when tradespeople are retained as experts is simple refusal—or inability—to produce a written expert report.

Typical explanations include:

• “I don’t write reports like that.”

• “I’m not comfortable citing codes.”

• “I’ll tell you what’s wrong, but I don’t want to put my name on a legal document.”

• “I don’t testify.”

These are not red flags in a service contractor. They are disqualifying limitations in an expert witness.

An expert report is not a repair invoice. It must:

• Identify the scope of review

• State opinions to a reasonable degree of professional certainty

• Cite specific code sections or standards

• Explain causation, not merely condition

• Be internally consistent and discoverable

Most tradespeople have never been trained to do this, and many actively avoid it once they understand what is required.

Deposition and Trial Testimony Are Not Extensions of the Jobsite

Even when a tradesperson is willing to write a report, testimony introduces another level of difficulty.

On a jobsite, tradespeople are authoritative. In deposition or trial, they are questioned by individuals whose sole function is to expose uncertainty, inconsistency, or overreach. Common vulnerabilities include:

• Conflating current code with code in effect at construction

• Treating “industry practice” as synonymous with legal compliance

• Making absolute statements that cannot be supported universally

• Becoming defensive or argumentative under cross-examination

Unlike professional experts who routinely testify, many tradespeople have never experienced formal cross-examination. The result is often damaging testimony that weakens the case they were retained to support.

Repair Authority Does Not Equal Opinion Authority

Courts draw a sharp distinction between those qualified to perform work and those qualified to opine on whether work met a legal or professional standard at a specific point in time.

A contractor may be perfectly qualified to repair a plumbing system while being unqualified to testify that:

• The original installation violated the adopted plumbing code

• The violation existed at the time of sale

• The violation constituted a breach of standard of care

• The violation caused the alleged damages

When tradespeople move beyond describing observed conditions and begin offering causation or compliance opinions without proper foundation, their testimony becomes vulnerable—or inadmissible.

Many Tradespeople Understand the Risk—and Decline Accordingly

Experienced contractors often decline expert roles not because they lack knowledge, but because they understand the risk:

• Exposure to licensing complaints

• Involvement in protracted litigation

• Time away from revenue-generating work

• Being forced to defend opinions years later

This is why attorneys frequently encounter tradespeople who will inspect, repair, or provide informal commentary—but will not sign reports or testify.

This reluctance is rational. Litigation expertise is a separate professional lane, not a natural extension of the trades.

The Practical Consequence for Attorneys

When tradespeople are used improperly as experts, several predictable problems arise:

• Opinions are excluded or limited

• Reports are incomplete or unsupportable

• Testimony contradicts pleadings or discovery positions

• Repair costs are mistaken for damages opinions

• Credibility of the entire technical case is weakened

In many cases, the tradesperson’s involvement ultimately benefits the opposing party more than the retaining one.

A More Effective Approach

Tradespeople are often best utilized as:

• Fact witnesses, limited to observations and work performed

• Repair contractors, providing scope and cost data

• Consulting resources, informing a qualified expert’s analysis

A separate, litigation-qualified construction expert can then integrate those inputs into a defensible opinion grounded in codes, standards, and methodology.

This division of labor preserves credibility, reduces risk, and aligns each professional with what they actually do best.

Closing Observation

The difficulty in hiring tradespeople as experts is not a reflection of their competence. It is a reflection of misaligned expectations.

Inspecting and repairing construction work is not the same as analyzing it through the lens of litigation. Writing expert reports and testifying under oath require a distinct skill set—one that most tradespeople neither cultivate nor desire.

Attorneys who recognize this distinction early avoid unnecessary friction, wasted fees, and weakened cases. Those who do not often learn the lesson later, at a far higher cost.