HOW HE WORKSHOW HE WORKSHOW HE WORKS

Field-Based, Standard-Anchored Opinions

Upward view of a circular building interior
Field-Based, Standard-Anchored Opinions
Our approach
Opinions begin at the property, not on paper. Conditions are observed, measured, and photographed on site before any conclusion about the work is reached.
Field-Based Findings
Our approach
Moisture readings, flashing details, fastener patterns and tolerances are recorded as they exist on site, so the file rests on measured conditions rather than recollection.
Code and Standard Anchored
Our approach
Findings are measured against the Chicago building code, recognized industry standards, and the manufacturer installation instructions that governed the work when it was built.
Documented Findings
Our approach
Every observation is recorded with dated photographs, field notes, and measurements, so the basis for each opinion can be traced, reviewed, and tested later.
Independence
Our approach
The analysis follows the evidence. Paul gives the same opinion whichever side retains him, which is what makes the opinion worth having.
Inside the Builder's Lane
Our approach
Workmanship, means and methods, code compliance and repair cost. Engineering and design questions are referred out rather than stretched.
Chicago and Cook County
Our approach
Local code amendments, inspection practice and trade conditions are familiar ground after three decades of building in this market.
Clear Deliverables
Our approach
Record review, site inspection, written report, rebuttal and testimony, with scope agreed at the outset.
Conflicts Cleared First
Our approach
Each inquiry is checked against current and prior engagements before a file is opened, so conflicts surface at the outset rather than later.
Discuss a MatterDiscuss a MatterDiscuss a Matter

Need a Construction Defect Expert?

Every matter turns on what was actually built. Findings come from field observation and the governing documents, then are documented so they hold up under examination.

Questions Attorneys Ask

No. Paul is retained by both sides and gives the same opinion either way. The analysis follows the evidence, not the party paying for it.
He says so, early and plainly. An opinion that cannot survive cross-examination is of no use to anyone.
At the outset, in writing, after a conflict check and a review of what the matter actually requires.
Paul handles the workmanship and code portions and works alongside a licensed engineer or architect on the rest rather than reaching outside his qualifications.
Availability is confirmed at engagement. Inspections are arranged around site access and, where relevant, weather or an active leak.
The parties for a conflict check, a description of the claimed defects, and access to the plans, specifications, contract and photographs.