Can You Recover Expert Witness Fees in Washington State Litigation?

Expert witnesses can play an important role in Washington litigation, especially when a case turns on causation, damages, professional standards, technical issues, or industry practices. Their fees, however, can quickly become one of the largest case expenses.

That leads to a practical question: If you win, can you make the other side pay for your expert witness fees?

In most Washington cases, no. A prevailing party usually cannot recover the full cost of a privately retained expert as ordinary taxable costs under RCW 4.84.010. Still, there are important exceptions when a specific statute, court rule, contract, or other recognized legal basis allows broader recovery.

This guide explains when expert witness fees may be recoverable in Washington, when they usually remain the hiring party’s responsibility, and how attorneys can protect a possible fee request from the start.

Are Expert Witness Fees Recoverable as Costs in Washington?

In ordinary Washington civil litigation, full retained expert witness fees are generally not recoverable as routine taxable “costs.” RCW 4.84.010 lists the types of costs that may be allowed to a prevailing party, including certain filing fees, service fees, statutory witness fees, expenses for reports and records admitted into evidence, and limited deposition transcription expenses.

Washington courts have treated that costs statute narrowly. In State v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc., relying on Estep v. Hamilton, the court explained that RCW 4.84.010 does not authorize expert witness fees in an award of costs to the prevailing party. Without a separate statute, applicable court rule, recognized equitable basis, or sufficiently specific contract provision, a prevailing party usually cannot shift the full cost of a retained expert to the opposing party.

This can be a costly surprise. A party may win the case and still be left paying most, or all, of its expert’s private invoice unless another legal source allows those fees to be recovered.

When Can Expert Witness Fees Be Recovered in Washington?

There are exceptions, but courts usually require a clear legal basis before shifting expert fees. The most common sources are statutes, court rules, contracts, and other recognized legal grounds.

Washington Equal Access to Justice Act

Washington’s Equal Access to Justice Act can allow a qualified party to recover fees and expenses in judicial review of agency action.

Under RCW 4.84.340, those expenses may include reasonable expert witness expenses, as well as the reasonable cost of a study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project that the court finds necessary for case preparation.

Under RCW 4.84.350, a court must award fees and expenses to a qualified party that prevails unless the agency action was substantially justified or circumstances make an award unjust. The total award under that subsection is capped at $25,000, and if two or more qualified parties join in the action, the total award still may not exceed $25,000.

RCW 4.84.340 also includes a rate cap: expert compensation cannot exceed the highest rate Washington pays its own expert witnesses.

Because the statute applies only to qualified parties, counsel should also confirm the party’s eligibility and whether all parties challenging the agency action meet the statute’s requirements.

A strong request should explain why the expert work was needed, how it helped the case, and why the amount requested fits within the statute.

Civil Arbitration Appeals and Trial De Novo Costs

Civil arbitration appeals carry a specific cost risk. Under RCW 7.06.060, if a party requests a trial de novo after a civil arbitration award and fails to improve its position, the superior court must assess costs and reasonable attorney fees against that party.

Those costs may include testimony-related expert expenses, but only if the court finds they were reasonably necessary after the request for trial de novo was filed. SCCAR 7.3 limits recovery under that rule to costs and fees incurred after the trial de novo request is filed, and it defines “costs” as whatever a statute or court rule allows. RCW 7.06.060 is the statute that fills in that broader definition, and it specifically includes expenses tied to expert witness testimony when the court finds them reasonably necessary.

Because recoverable amounts are tied to the period after the trial de novo request, attorneys should make that timing easy to show. Separate invoice entries can help avoid disputes about which expert charges fall within the recoverable period.

Contracts That Shift Expert Witness Fees

Contracts may also affect expert-fee recovery, but the wording should be clear. Washington courts generally require a statute, court rule, recognized equitable basis, or sufficiently specific contract language before allowing expanded recovery beyond ordinary taxable costs.

When expert fees may matter, clear contract language helps. A clause that expressly mentions expert witness fees is easier to rely on than a general reference to “attorneys’ fees and costs.” General cost language may leave room for dispute if one side later seeks to recover expert review, consultation, deposition, or trial testimony expenses.

Washington Fee-Shifting Statutes

Some Washington statutes directly address expert fees. Washington’s Voting Rights Act is one example.

RCW 29A.92.130 provides that, in an action to enforce the Washington Voting Rights Act, the court may allow certain prevailing plaintiffs, other than the state or a political subdivision, to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, all nonattorney fee costs as defined by RCW 4.84.010, and reasonable expert witness fees. That recovery may include such reasonable fees and costs incurred before filing the action.

Chapter 215, Laws of 2026 is listed as a 2026 change to RCW 29A.92.130 and carries an effective date of June 11, 2026. Because the act also includes a funding-contingency clause, counsel should confirm the current codified text and operative status before relying on the 2026 amendments.

For attorneys, the claim-specific statute matters. RCW 4.84.010 may answer the question in many cases, but not all of them. Counsel should confirm the current version of any fee-shifting statute before relying on it in a motion, mediation brief, or settlement discussion.

Why Expert Reliability Still Matters in Fee Recovery

Fee recovery is only part of the problem. If an expert’s opinion is weak, poorly supported, or unnecessary, the testimony may be challenged before the fee issue ever matters.

Even when fee shifting is available, the request usually has to show that the expert work was reasonable, necessary, and tied to the issues in the case, depending on the governing statute, rule, or contract. The requested amount also has to be reasonable.

Expert reliability matters to the case itself. Washington ER 702 allows expert testimony when the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact and the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. In Advanced Health Care, Inc. v. Guscott, the Court of Appeals explained that Frye applies when expert testimony relies on a novel scientific principle or method. If the evidence does not involve a new scientific principle or method, the issue is generally analyzed under ER 702 and related evidence rules.

Common expert vetting problems include:

• Weak or mismatched qualifications;
• Incomplete records or unsupported assumptions;
• Methods that do not actually answer the disputed issue;
• Opinions that push the data further than it can reasonably go.

These issues can weaken admissibility and may also make a later fee request harder to justify. The better approach is to choose an expert whose work is necessary, reliable, well-documented, and proportionate to the case.

Common Reasons Expert Fee Requests Fail

Many expert fee requests fall apart because the record is thin, not because the legal theory is impossible. The party may have a valid fee-shifting argument, but the invoices may not show what the expert did, when the work was done, or why it mattered.

Common documentation problems include block-billed invoices, vague entries such as “case review,” charges incurred before the recoverable period, duplicative expert work, excessive preparation time, and expert work that is not clearly connected to the issues the court had to decide. These issues do not automatically defeat a fee request, but they can make the request harder to justify.

As a practical matter, expert fee recovery is easier to support when attorneys plan for it early.

How Attorneys Can Preserve a Washington Expert Fee Request

When expert fees may be recoverable, the strongest request is built early. Courts are more likely to take the request seriously when the invoices, timing, and need for the work are clear.

Attorneys should:

• Identify the statute, rule, or contract clause that allows recovery;
• Separate consulting, report, deposition, and trial testimony time;
• Distinguish testimony-related expenses from broader consulting or strategy work;
• Track whether fees were incurred before or after a trial de novo request, when applicable;
• Keep clear invoices showing what work was performed;
• Explain why the expert’s work was necessary and reasonable.

Invoices help, but they usually are not enough by themselves. A strong fee motion connects the expert’s work to the disputed issues and explains why the requested amount is reasonable under the governing authority.