Beyond State Lines: How Litigators Use PSYPACT to Secure Specialized Experts
“The right expert is not always down the street.”
Sometimes the psychologist with the right forensic background, the right testing experience, and the right courtroom presence is not in your county. They may not even be in your state. For years, that created a practical problem for attorneys: do you retain the most qualified expert and deal with licensing barriers, travel costs, and scheduling complications, or do you settle for whoever is locally available? PSYPACT changes that calculation.
What PSYPACT Allows Attorneys to Do
The Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact, commonly known as PSYPACT, allows appropriately authorized psychologists to provide telepsychology and temporary in-person psychological services across participating jurisdictions. For attorneys, the value is straightforward. PSYPACT can expand the expert pool beyond local geography, allowing legal teams to prioritize specialization, forensic experience, and fit for the case.
That matters because forensic psychology is not one-size-fits-all. A psychologist who is excellent in custody evaluations may not be the right expert for a complex trauma case. A general clinical background may not be enough for criminal competency, mental health diversion, psychosexual evaluation, or civil damages involving psychological injury. The issue is not whether a psychologist is qualified in the abstract. The issue is whether the expert’s background fits the legal question.
PSYPACT gives attorneys a more flexible way to make that match.
Why the California/Nevada Distinction Matters
It is important, however, to be precise. California is not currently a PSYPACT member state. California licensure alone does not authorize a psychologist to practice under PSYPACT. Dr. Dana Anderson’s PSYPACT authority is based on her qualifying licensure in Nevada, a participating PSYPACT state, along with the required PSYPACT authorizations. When providing telepsychology services under PSYPACT, the psychologist must be physically located in their designated home state at the time services are delivered. That distinction matters. PSYPACT is not a shortcut around state licensing rules. It is a structured interstate framework that allows authorized psychologists to practice in participating jurisdictions when the requirements are met.
The Two Main PSYPACT Pathways
There are two main PSYPACT pathways attorneys should understand.
The first is the Authority to Practice Interjurisdictional Telepsychology, or APIT. This allows an authorized psychologist to provide telepsychology services to individuals located in participating PSYPACT jurisdictions. In forensic work, that may include remote interviews, psychological consultation, records-based analysis, attorney consultation, and other services that can be performed appropriately through secure video technology. The psychologist must still comply with PSYPACT rules and the applicable requirements of the jurisdictions involved.
The second is Temporary Authorization to Practice, or TAP. TAP allows an authorized psychologist to provide temporary in-person psychological services in a participating PSYPACT state for up to 30 days per calendar year in that state. This can be useful when a case requires an in-person evaluation, court appearance, or other face-to-face forensic service.
“TAP authority can be especially important when a case requires in-person expert testimony, courtroom appearance, or other face-to-face forensic services in a participating jurisdiction.”
When PSYPACT Is Most Useful
For attorneys, PSYPACT can be especially useful in three situations.
First, it helps when the local expert pool is too limited. In specialized cases, geography can quickly become a constraint. PSYPACT allows attorneys to look beyond the nearest available professional and focus instead on the expert whose experience best fits the case.
Second, it can support consistency in multi-state litigation. When related matters involve multiple jurisdictions, using different experts in each location can create uneven methodology and conflicting testimony. A PSYPACT-authorized expert may be able to provide a more consistent forensic approach across participating states.
“In multi-state litigation, consistent trial preparation and a uniform forensic methodology can reduce avoidable discrepancies across related matters.”
Third, it can reduce unnecessary cost and delay. Remote consultation, records review, and video-based meetings can allow attorneys to involve a forensic psychologist earlier in the case, before the expense of travel or in-person evaluation becomes necessary.
What PSYPACT Does Not Replace
That said, attorneys should not assume that PSYPACT solves every jurisdictional issue. Court rules, admissibility standards, local procedure, and case-specific orders still matter. Remote testimony, for example, is not controlled by PSYPACT alone. Whether an expert may testify remotely depends on the court and the governing legal rules.
The safest approach is simple: verify first.
How Attorneys Should Verify Authorization
Before retaining an out-of-state psychologist, attorneys should confirm whether the expert holds current APIT and/or TAP authorization through the official PSYPACT Verification Portal. That verification should be part of the same due diligence used to review licensure, disciplinary history, forensic experience, prior testimony, and fit for the specific legal issue.
How California Forensic Psychology Supports Multi-State Cases
At California Forensic Psychology, our work is rooted in California forensic practice, but Dr. Anderson’s Nevada licensure and PSYPACT authorization allow the practice to support cases involving participating PSYPACT jurisdictions when the requested services fall within the compact’s framework. Our team-based model supports that work through forensic research, psychological testing analysis, records review, and litigation-focused report preparation.
The Better Question for Attorneys
In modern litigation, the closest expert is not always the right expert. PSYPACT allows attorneys to ask a better question: not “Who is nearby?” but “Who is actually qualified for this case?”
For legal teams handling complex psychological issues, that distinction matters. The right forensic psychologist should bring more than availability. They should bring relevant expertise, sound methodology, clear communication, and the ability to explain psychological findings in a way that helps the court understand the issues before it.
When a case requires specialized psychological expertise across jurisdictions, PSYPACT can help attorneys move beyond geography and focus on fit.
To learn whether California Forensic Psychology can support your case in a participating PSYPACT jurisdiction, Book a consultation now or contact us to learn more about our 42-state reach and discuss your case.