Credentials and the current record

Why this page does not carry an engagement list

Most expert credential pages are a list: matters, dates, courts, roles. This one is not, and the reason is worth stating plainly rather than leaving as an absence.

An engagement list published on a static reference site has two failure modes and no way for a reader to tell which one applies. It goes stale — work continues, the page does not — and it is necessarily incomplete, because a great deal of expert work is confidential, is subject to protective arrangements, or simply is not the kind of thing that belongs on a public page. A reader looking at such a list cannot distinguish "this is everything" from "this is what was convenient to publish in a year nobody remembers".

So this site does not attempt one. hartzer.com is the actively maintained record of credentials and engagements, and that is where a retaining attorney should look for the current position. That is the honest arrangement, and it is why this page will not go out of date.

The practice

I have worked in the domain name industry since 1996. The expert work draws on that background and covers the domain record as evidence:

• Registration records — current and historical registration data, registrar and registry records, transfer documentation, status codes and the reconstruction of who controlled a name on a given date.
• Infrastructure — DNS and resolution history, hosting and network records, certificate issuance timelines, redirect and traffic-diversion analysis.
• Attribution — linkage analysis across a portfolio where the public record is redacted, stated as a matrix with each link's strength and its innocent explanation.
• Preservation and custody — capture, hashing, contemporaneous collection logs, and the completeness assessment of what a custodian produced against what the governing agreements indicate should exist.
• Proceeding-shaped work — indexed annex sets and technical declarations for administrative proceedings, and date-anchored timelines and evidence matrices for litigation.

I have testified in domain-related legal cases and have provided expert witness reports in other cases.

What is deliberately absent

No named cases, courts, dockets, parties, panels, opposing experts or law firms appear anywhere on this site, including matters that are of public record. No counts of engagements, reports, depositions or testimony appear either. No outcome is claimed, implied or hinted at, and nothing here suggests that retaining any expert affects a result.

Those are editorial constraints applied to the whole site rather than to this page alone. They exist because the alternative — a credentials page assembled from whatever was quotable — is exactly the material that gets read back to a witness later, and because a reference site that is useful for its analysis should not depend on its author's self-description to be worth citing.

Verifying the current position

For current credentials, publications, industry roles and the engagement record, see hartzer.com.

For a live matter, the practical route is contact through counsel, with a conflict check completed before any substantive material is exchanged. The engagement process page describes what that sequence looks like structurally.

Nothing on this page or elsewhere on this site is legal advice, and nothing here creates an expert-client or attorney-client relationship.