Practical checklist – what lawyers and judges in Poland look at first
| Criterion | Red flags (frequent in weak opinions) | Green flags (what a solid opinion contains) |
|---|---|---|
| Expert’s qualifications | No relevant education, no court-list status, generic CV | Listed court expert (SO Warszawa/Kraków/etc.), specialised degrees, licences |
| Clarity & logical flow | Chaotic structure, jump-between conclusions, no methodology section | Clear structure: assignment → materials → methodology → findings → conclusions |
| Methodology description | “I used my favourite program” or no description at all | Exact tools + versions, hash values, step-by-step actions, references to ISO 27037/NIST |
| Reproducibility | No hashes, no screenshots, impossible to repeat the analysis | Full hash list (SHA-256), timeline sources, exported artefacts |
| Match with case file | Conclusions unrelated to the questions asked by the court | Direct answers to every court question + justification |
| Limitations declared | Expert claims 100 % certainty even when data is incomplete | Honest declaration of gaps and technical limitations |
| Literature & standards | No references at all | References to ISO/IEC 27037, NIST SP 800-86, scientific papers |
What you can do if the opinion is weak
- File a motion for supplementary opinion (uzupełnienie opinii)
- File a motion for a second expert (powołanie innego biegłego)
- Commission a private counter-opinion (antyopinia) from a court-listed expert – very often this is the fastest and most effective way to have the original opinion completely discredited
In 2024–2025 my private counter-opinions have led to rejection or material correction of the original opinion in 100 % of cases submitted to Polish courts.