Product failures
don't just burn capital.
They generate litigation.
When a product effort ends in litigation, the outcome often turns on a single question: what decision was made — or deliberately avoided — and what did the responsible parties know at the time. I find that answer, document it to evidentiary standards, and put it on the record with the authority of someone who has run programs exactly like the one at issue.
"I spent 30 years making the decisions that define product safety outcomes — on programs worth billions of dollars. When those decisions become the subject of litigation, I can explain to a jury exactly what the standard of care required, what was done, and what was not."
The engineer who ran the program
Most technical expert witnesses are academics or independent consultants who have studied a product category from the outside. I led the programs. As Chief Engineer at General Motors, I held product decision responsibility from concept through development, product launch and lifecycle management. I led ADAS integration on one of the first global vehicles with active safety and autonomous capabilities that led to a 5-star EU/ANCAP certification.
I have also led engineering recovery inside distressed programs. At various EV startup companies, I stepped into vehicle programs that had stopped converging and diagnosed precisely where the technical decisions diverged from disclosed commitments. That direct, bilateral experience — of building programs correctly and of diagnosing where they failed — is the rarest credential an automotive expert witness can offer.
I accept plaintiff and defense engagements and maintain a practice limited to 2–4 concurrent matters. That ceiling is deliberate — it ensures the depth of analysis and availability of access that complex technical litigation requires.
Cases I am qualified to address
My testimony is grounded in firsthand program leadership — not retrospective analysis alone.
"The critical product decision was never made explicitly — and everything built on top of that gap is now compounding in the wrong direction."— Waqar Hashim, Product Recovery Group
Verified professional endorsements
These assessments come from executives, CEOs, board members, and program leaders who worked directly with Waqar across complex engineering environments. They are drawn from verified professional profiles.
How I work with counsel
I accept plaintiff and defense engagements. I work with 2–4 clients at a time.
We can also create customized technical reports and assessments tailored to the unique situation of your case, including joint consulting arrangements with your existing technical advisors.
The record behind the opinion
Present
Present
2021
2018
2014
1991
If the product doesn’t perform as expected
A confidential 30-minute consultation to assess whether the technical scope of your matter aligns with my expertise. I accept plaintiff and defense matters and maintain a practice limited to 2–4 concurrent engagements to ensure the depth and responsiveness that complex technical litigation demands.
All initial communications are treated as strictly confidential. Select a time directly — no obligation, no disclosure required before the call.