Why cybersecurity methodology matters alongside credentials
Why cybersecurity methodology matters alongside credentials
Publish Date: 2026-07-09 00:03:00
Source Domain: nydailyrecord.com
Using an unordered list, summarize the following article with between 4 and 8 key points. When litigating a cybersecurity-related civil or criminal matter, choosing the right cybersecurity expert can make or break a lawyer’s case. Many lawyers default to hiring people who have impressive resumes, long lists of certifications, and years of experience, but who lack certain other necessities. And while the former matters, they are often not what actually wins cases.
Joseph Steinberg, cybersecurity expert witness, whose track record may reflect experience in this area, points out that methodology and the resulting track record can be as important as credentials alone. His approach offers a practical way for attorneys to rethink how to choose expert witness professionals whose opinions will hold up under scrutiny in court.
Cybersecurity Expert Qualifications: Technical Certifications vs. Court Performance
Many attorneys begin with cybersecurity expert qualifications; certifications like CISSP or CEH signal technical competence. Years in the field suggest experience. These qualifications are commonly expected within the profession.
Joseph himself holds rare credentials. He is among a relatively small group of professionals holding these advanced certifications. He also authored the official textbook for chief information security officers studying for the ISSMP exam. Yet he is quick to point out that none of this guarantees success in court.
Differences often emerge in how expertise is applied. An expert can be technically flawless and still lose a case. That usually happens for three reasons. First, they cannot explain complex ideas in plain language to a jury. Second, they focus on technical details that do not connect to legal causation. Third, they come across as a biased hired gun rather than an objective analyst.
One of Steinberg’s advantages is communication. As a former columnist for major business publications, he developed a large readership by translating technical concepts into more accessible language and understanding. Ironically, while he is known for his technical knowledge, he says that communication skills often matter more than deep technical nuance.
Results may reflect not only knowledge but also the consistent application of a particular methodology. Steinberg reports that he has been on the winning side in a substantial majority of cases. That level of consistency may reflect factors beyond formal credentials.
How to Choose an Expert Witness: Track Record Over Resume
If there is one question attorneys should ask, it is this: What percentage of your cases result in favorable outcomes?
At first glance, that seems like a straightforward measure of quality. But it is not that simple. A high success rate alone does not necessarily reflect solely skill. In many cases, it also reflects selectivity.
Joseph Steinberg is candid about this distinction. He estimates his reported success rate is high, which is rare. But he does not attribute that to bias or advocacy. Instead, it comes down to discipline in the cases he chooses to take.
His framework is clear and consistent. Before accepting any engagement, three conditions must be met. He must believe he is on the side of justice. He must believe he can materially help win the case. And he must believe the case is winnable.
That level of selectivity is what sets certain experts apart. Many professionals accept nearly every engagement that comes their way. They stay busy, but their results are inconsistent. They may not even believe that their client deserves to win the case for which they have been hired. A selective expert, by contrast, filters out weak or unsupported claims before ever stepping into a courtroom. What remains are cases where their analysis can genuinely make an impact.
The broader landscape reinforces why this matters. According to research by the Pew Center, 63% of survey respondents indicate that they do not think cryptocurrencies are safe to use, and adoption reflects that hesitation. Only 17% of surveyed adults report having used crypto for transactional purposes, a figure that has remained unchanged since 2021 despite rapid growth in the broader crypto ecosystem. While volatility, political tensions, and headline risk all play a role, cybersecurity concerns remain a critical factor that cannot be ignored.
At the same time, AI-related threats are accelerating rapidly, with 87% of respondents identifying AI vulnerabilities as the fastest-growing cyber risk in 2025.
As disputes involving digital assets and emerging technologies continue to grow, so does the need for experts who can bring clarity to complex and evolving risks. In that environment, credentials may open the door, but methodology and judgment can play an important role in shaping outcomes.
Expert Witness Selection Criteria: Objectivity Trumps Impressive Credentials
A major challenge in litigation is expert testimony credibility. Juries often assume that experts are paid to support a specific side. Credentials alone do not eliminate that skepticism.
Objectivity may be an important consideration.
Joseph Steinberg signals objectivity in several ways. He works for both plaintiffs and defendants, depending on where the facts lead. And he declines cases even when they would be financially attractive if he does not believe that the party seeking to hire him is on the right side of justice.
This matters because it shows independence. When an expert consistently chooses cases based on evidence rather than opportunity, their testimony may be viewed as more persuasive.
He also warns against common pitfalls. Some experts stretch interpretations or rely on weak technical arguments to support the side paying them. That approach may work temporarily, but it may affect credibility and can face greater scrutiny during cross-examination.
For attorneys, this means looking beyond the resume. The real question is whether the expert demonstrates consistent, principled decision-making.
The information provided in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended as legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers should not rely solely on the content of this article and are encouraged to seek professional advice tailored to their specific circumstances. We disclaim any liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or reliance on, the information presented.
