When trees end up in court, the analysis has to hold.
Expert reports, forensic investigation, deposition and court testimony for attorneys and parties in tree-related disputes — grounded in recognized standards and written to survive cross-examination.
Tree litigation turns on questions most witnesses cannot answer credibly: Was the failure foreseeable? Did the work meet the standard of care? What was the tree worth? Who had responsibility for the condition that caused the damage? Answering those questions takes someone who knows the science, knows the professional standards, and can document an opinion clearly enough that it holds up under challenge.
I provide expert and forensic arborist services in the Kansas City region for property damage and personal injury matters, boundary and neighbor disputes, condemnation and eminent domain proceedings, contractor negligence claims, and insurance disputes. Opinions are grounded in the recognized standards of the field — ANSI A300 tree care standards, ISA best management practices, TRAQ risk methodology, and the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal — not personal preference.
When you need an expert
A tree or limb failed and caused property damage or injury, and foreseeability is in question. A neighbor, contractor, or utility damaged or removed trees and the loss needs to be established. A government taking involves trees the agency has undervalued. An insurance claim was denied and the denial rests on disputed facts about the tree. Or you are an attorney who needs a qualified expert to evaluate whether a tree-related claim has merit before you invest in it.
I also perform pre-litigation case reviews: an honest assessment of the technical strength of a claim, before either side spends heavily on it.
What you get
Forensic site investigation with full documentation. A written expert report that states the opinion, the basis for it, and the standards and evidence it rests on. Deposition and court testimony as needed. Rebuttal review of opposing expert reports. Tree valuations prepared under CTLA methodology when damages are at issue.
The report is the product: clear enough for a judge or jury to follow, rigorous enough that cross-examination does not move it.
How it works
An initial case review and conflict check, with a fee agreement up front. Site investigation and evidence review. Expert report on your schedule and the court’s. Testimony as the matter requires, with attorney collaboration throughout.
Where damages valuation is central, see also tree appraisal services.
Questions I hear a lot.
What does a forensic arborist actually determine?
Typically: why a tree or limb failed, whether the failure was foreseeable to a reasonable owner or professional, whether work performed on a tree met the standard of care under ANSI A300 and industry best practices, what a damaged or removed tree was worth, and whether a claimed condition actually existed. The answers come from physical evidence, documented methodology, and recognized standards.
Which side do you work for?
Either. The opinion is the same regardless of who retains me — that is what makes it useful. If the evidence does not support your position, you will hear that early, in the case review, before you have spent significant money.
What are your qualifications?
ISA Certified Arborist (#MW-6136A), ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ), with a practice focused on diagnostics, risk assessment, and CTLA appraisal work. A current CV, fee schedule, and expert witness agreement are available on request.
Do you handle small neighbor disputes, or only large litigation?
Both. Many tree disputes resolve without a courtroom once a credible, documented expert opinion exists — a clear report about what happened and what the tree was worth often ends the argument. For matters that do proceed, the same report becomes the foundation for testimony.
How are expert services billed?
Case review and investigation are quoted up front; testimony and deposition time are billed at an hourly rate under a written fee agreement. I do not work on contingency — an expert whose payment depends on the outcome is not credible, and credibility is the entire product.
Tell me about your situation.
Every assignment starts with a short conversation. Describe what's going on, and I'll tell you honestly whether you need this service, something simpler, or nothing at all.