Prepare for the questions · Practice under pressure · Testify with confidence

Cross-examine yourself before opposing counsel does.

iTestify is an AI-powered testimony training platform designed to simulate the real-world experience of providing testimony in depositions, trials, and other legal proceedings.

Whether you're an expert witness, corporate executive, professional, or individual preparing to testify, iTestify allows you to practice responding to challenging questions, experience realistic cross-examination, and receive immediate, actionable feedback on your performance.

Training, used with your attorney. iTestify is a training tool to be used in conjunction with your attorney to better prepare you for deposition and trial testimony. iTestify will provide you examples of the general process and types of questions and questioning techniques used by attorneys. iTestify is not intended to replace the attorney.

On the record DepositionLevel 2 00:00
QCan you say with certainty that his exposure exceeded that level every day he ran that line?
AAbsolutely. The exposures were consistently above that level throughout.
QWhat personal sampling do you have for him specifically?
ANone for him. Two area surveys from the same building.
QDoctor — your own 2016 paper says a reconstruction like this carries substantial uncertainty. Which is it?
Ms. Vance is speaking
Off the record EvaluationVol. I · 44 lines
0/100
Mixed — trial-risk moments

A disciplined witness on scope and compensation who then claimed a level of precision the exposure data cannot support.

Certainty42
Factual Assumptions52
Methodology66
Qualifications82
Independence88
Critical moment — Certainty “Absolutely … consistently above that level throughout” claims daily certainty that two area surveys and zero personal samples cannot support.
Coaching RetrySame question
CoachThat answer is the one that comes back at trial. “Absolutely” is a word you cannot defend with two area surveys. Let us run it again.
Ms. VanceCan you say with certainty that his exposure exceeded that level every day?
YouNo. The area data supports a range for the work area. I have no personal sampling for him, and I would not state a daily figure.
That answer survives It concedes what the data cannot carry and keeps the opinion it can. Nothing there is quotable against you.
Live examination · opposing counsel adapts to every answer
I.

A real examination, out loud

Through realistic practice examinations, witnesses build the composure and clarity to give truthful, precise, and credible answers under pressure. Built on a working testimony methodology: 110 examination questions across the five lines of attack, and a 76-question outline for corporate representatives.

No multiple choice, no flashcards. You speak your testimony and opposing counsel answers it — interrupting when a real attorney would, following up where you left a door open, and reading your own words back to you.

01 · Choose your ground

Three ways in

Generic

No scenario, no facts — straight at the things true of every expert.

Example

A simulated scenario with a witness to play, every fact written for you.

Your background

Upload your CV, choose your field, and the attorney examines you as yourself.

Every way in is training. None of them involves a real case.

02 · Go on the record

Pick your opponent

Deposition or trial cross-examination. Three levels of opposing counsel, from professional to hostile — embedded assumptions, hypotheticals, methodology challenges, your own prior statements, and questions about what you are paid.

At level three you will be cut off mid-answer. That is not theatre — it is Tuesday.

03 · Nothing softened

Scored only at the end

Nobody tells you how you are doing while you testify — exactly like the real room. The examination ends when you end it, and only then is the record sealed, read, and scored.

Every deduction points at something you actually said.

Fed. R. Evid. 702Testimony by expert witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

  1. (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
  2. (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
  3. (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
  4. (d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Opposing counsel knows Rule 702 by heart. The examination is built to test you against this Rule before they do.

II.

The Five Lines of Attack

Regardless of subject matter, opposing counsel is almost always attacking one of five things. The examination is built to find each one before they do — 110 questions, drawn from a methodology written by people who have sat through the real thing.

01

Independence

Are your opinions your own, or do they track too closely to whoever is paying you?

02

Qualifications

Is your background actually suited to this specific opinion, not just adjacent to it?

03

Methodology

Did you apply a recognized method, and apply it the way your field actually applies it?

04

Factual Assumptions

Is the underlying data sufficient, accurate, and yours to rely on — or borrowed and untested?

05

Certainty

Does your stated confidence actually match what your methodology can support?

III.

Scored honestly.
Coached hard.

◆

The verdict is earned, not flattered. One overall score, five graded categories — the same five above — and a written rationale for every number, each one cited to your own testimony.

◆

Your worst moments, quoted back. The report pulls the exact exchanges that hurt you — the question, your answer, why it matters at trial, and what a stronger answer sounds like.

◆

Then you retry them, out loud. The coach stays on the line after the score. It replays the questions that damaged you, you answer again, and it tells you whether the new answer would have survived.

◆

Language that can be used against you. Absolutes, guarantees, speculation — flagged from your actual transcript, quietly, with the reasoning spelled out.

Post-examination evaluation
71/100
Mixed — trial-risk moments

A disciplined witness on scope and compensation who then claimed a level of precision the exposure data cannot support.

Certainty42
Factual Assumptions52
Methodology66
Qualifications82
Independence88
Critical moment — speculation “Absolutely … consistently above that level throughout” claims daily certainty that two area surveys and zero personal samples cannot support.
IV.

Watch the number move

◆

Your scores are kept. Your words are not. Every session adds its score and its five category scores. What you said and the review itself disappear when you leave it.

◆

The direction is the training signal. Each session shows how it moved against the one before, and your standing profile shows which of the five categories is still costing you.

◆

Read for the session, never kept. Your answers are sent only to be scored, and a CV you add is read only for that session. iTestify saves none of it; your scores stay in your browser.

93▲25 The benzene causation matter · Deposition · Level 2
14 answers · 16 minutes
Excellent
68▲34 Generic — straight credibility · Deposition · Level 2
12 answers · 14 minutes
Mixed
34 The benzene causation matter · Cross-examination · Level 3
9 answers · 11 minutes
Serious weakness

The room is open.

iTestify is in private evaluation. If you were sent a link, that link is your key — walk straight in. To request access, reach the iTestify team.