Marc Steinberg presents a significant intelligence gap for plaintiff attorneys, as his credentials, institutional affiliation, and specific area of expertise remain undocumented despite appearing as an expert witness in federal opioid litigation. His case history shows exclusive involvement in the massive National Prescription Opiate Litigation in N.D. Ohio, with five separate appearances between July 2021 and November 2022, all representing plaintiff interests. The clustering of his appearances within this single MDL suggests either specialized knowledge relevant to opioid-related claims or a limited practice scope that warrants investigation before engagement. Steinberg's courtroom profile reveals a 100% plaintiff-side alignment across his documented cases, but this apparent loyalty comes with substantial credentialing concerns. The absence of any recorded Daubert challenges may indicate either unopposed admissibility or insufficient scrutiny of his qualifications by defense counsel. For plaintiff attorneys, this expert represents a high-risk proposition due to the complete lack of verifiable credentials, methodology, or institutional backing. His repeated use in opioid litigation suggests some level of plaintiff counsel confidence, but the missing foundational information creates significant Daubert vulnerabilities that sophisticated defense teams will likely exploit. Before considering Steinberg, plaintiff counsel should demand comprehensive credential verification and assess whether his apparent opioid-specific experience justifies the substantial risk of a credentials-based exclusion motion.
No Daubert challenges on record.
Free during beta. Your inquiry will be sent to MTAA and the expert if they've claimed their profile.
We'll send a verification link to your email. Once verified you can add contact info, bio, and availability.