I’ve been doing psych evaluations for litigation for over 30 years. During that time I’ve worked for both the defense and the plaintiffs or applicants. I’ve read and critiqued between 30,000 and 50,000 psych reports but rarely have I seen a report whose conclusions were adequately supported by the data. For the last 12 years I have been a renegade on a crusade to eliminate substantially flawed reports, being willing to incur the wrath of my colleagues by going into court and testify against other doctors. As part of my service, I have been writing Apricots™ to help attorneys win their cases. For reasons I cannot really understand, most of my commissions come from defense attorneys although substantial flaws are equally found in reports commissioned by both sides. Regardless, an Apricot™ is a work-product privileged report that helps an attorney cross-examine and/or write a trial brief by describing the substantial flaws found in a psych doctor’s report in jargon-free, non-te