Forensic Psychologist & Expert Witness for Utah Attorneys

Two roles are available and they should not be confused at the outset. A testifying expert produces a report that will be disclosed and whose reasoning will be examined. A consulting expert advises counsel without testifying, which is the right posture for evaluating whether an evaluation is worth commissioning at all. In federal civil matters, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs what a retained testifying expert must disclose and when. In federal criminal matters, Rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs notice of an insanity defense and of expert evidence of a mental condition. Counsel should identify which role is being retained before the work begins, because it changes what is discoverable.

This is the single most common structural error in psychological evidence, and it is worth stating plainly. A treating clinician documents care provided, works substantially from the patient's own account, and has a therapeutic alliance that is necessary for treatment and disqualifying for independent opinion. A forensic evaluator has no such alliance, weighs the account against records and collateral sources, addresses response style directly, and considers explanations the patient would not offer.

Asking a treating psychologist to supply a causation opinion, a risk opinion, or a custody-adjacent opinion creates a conflict that opposing counsel will identify immediately, and it can compromise the treatment relationship at the same time. The federal rules recognize a version of this distinction in expert disclosure, where a retained expert and a treating provider are handled differently. The practical consequence for counsel: treatment records are evidence of what was reported and what care was given, and they are not a substitute for an independent evaluation. Dr. Semenick does not occupy both roles in the same case.

The most valuable conversation usually happens before anything is commissioned. A referral framed as one question is often better answered by a different one — a matter described as a trauma assessment may turn on causation and belong in a personal injury evaluation, a competency concern may actually be a mitigation question, and a diagnostic clarification may need to precede any forensic referral at all.

Early consultation clarifies whether an evaluation will help, which question it should answer, which records are essential and which are merely nice to have, whether collateral interviews are appropriate, and whether the timeline is realistic against the calendar. It also identifies where the answer lies outside psychology — a neuropsychological question, a medical question, or a legal question the evaluator should not be opining on. Being told that an evaluation will not help is cheaper than commissioning one that does not.

Where an opposing or prior evaluation is in play, counsel often needs to know whether its conclusions are actually supported by its methods.

Scope is set to the need. Some matters call for a verbal consultation that helps counsel prepare a cross-examination. Others call for a written critique. Others require an independent evaluation, because there is a firm limit on what can be said about a person who has not been examined: methodology and reasoning can be assessed from a report, but a diagnosis or a competing clinical opinion about an individual requires evaluating that individual. A review that respects that line is more useful than one that does not, and opposing counsel will find the difference.

Criminal defense: mitigation and sentencing evaluations, false confession and Miranda waiver evaluations, juvenile forensic evaluations including transfer and amenability questions, psychosexual evaluations and sexual violence risk assessment, violence risk assessment, and — in federal matters only — competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility.

Civil litigation: personal injury psychological evaluations including defense examinations, PTSD and trauma assessments where causation and psychological damages are contested, and diagnostic clarification where the clinical picture is disputed. Employment and institutional matters: fitness for duty evaluations and workplace threat assessment. Family law and child welfare: parental fitness evaluations in a child welfare context, and juvenile matters. Referrals come from plaintiff and defense counsel, prosecution and defense, agencies, and courts, and the analysis does not change with the source — an evaluator whose findings track the retaining party is useless to everyone, including the party that retained them.

Competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility evaluations are accepted in federal matters only in this private practice context. State-court competency and criminal responsibility referrals, including juvenile competency, should go to an evaluator qualified under the applicable state framework. Every other referral question listed above is available in both state and federal matters.

Child custody evaluations are not offered. Parental fitness in a child welfare context is a distinct referral question that is available; custody and parent-time recommendations are not, and a parental fitness evaluation should not be commissioned as a substitute for a custody evaluation. Therapy is also not provided to anyone evaluated in a forensic capacity, for the role-separation reasons described above.

A report that will be tested should be written that way from the first draft. That means the reasoning is visible rather than asserted, the sources of every factual claim are identified, competing explanations appear in the report rather than surfacing for the first time in deposition, and the limits are stated by the evaluator rather than extracted by opposing counsel. The most damaging cross-examination material in psychological evidence is usually an overreach the report did not need to make.

Admissibility standards for expert opinion differ between federal court and Utah state court — Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Utah Rule of Evidence 702 are not identical in their history or their application — and counsel is the right source of advice on what the applicable standard requires. What the evaluator controls is the quality of the underlying work: recognized methods, documented reasoning, and conclusions proportional to the data. Availability for deposition and trial testimony, and the fee structure for it, are addressed in the engagement agreement rather than assumed.

An evaluation requested weeks before a sentencing memorandum, a disclosure deadline, or a certification hearing is a different product from one requested days before it, and the difference is visible in the report. Expedited scheduling may be available for plea windows, hearing dates, detention timelines, and disclosure deadlines, but expedition compresses the interview and testing rather than the records, so early contact remains the better lever.

Both attorney-retained and court-appointed referrals can be discussed. Counsel should identify which applies at the outset, because it determines who the client is, who receives the report, what confidentiality the examinee is told about, and whether the work is protected as consulting work product or destined for the court regardless of its content.

The examinee is notified of those terms before the evaluation begins, in every case. That notification is not a formality — an examinee who believes they are in a confidential clinical encounter has been misled, and the resulting report is vulnerable for that reason alone.

Fees depend on scope: records volume, measures required, collateral contacts, report complexity, and whether deposition or trial testimony is anticipated. They are quoted in writing after an initial consultation and set out in an engagement agreement before work begins. Sample reports are not published, since every report concerns an identifiable person.

The office is at 9265 Highland Drive in Sandy, Utah, about twenty minutes from downtown Salt Lake City and reachable from Provo, Ogden, and Park City. Virtual appointments are available for consultation and for the portions of an evaluation where remote administration is appropriate. Dr. Semenick is licensed in Utah, license number 12848919-2501.