MM10...while I usually agree with MikeTheEngineer, my opinion is that the liability is actually lower....after all, most of what forensic engineering entails is a statement of opinion (obviously based on investigation and fact, but nonetheless an opinion). Given that, anyone can have an opinion and it can be right or wrong, but that depends on the credibility of those who try to refute that opinion.
I've been doing forensic work for most of my 35 years in engineering. It has now grown to about 60 to 70 percent of my practice. I enjoy it. Here's where I again agree completely with MikeTheEngineer...you have to be well rounded in your engineering capability, with a healthy dose of common sense.
As an example, I commonly run into projects where I use my structural background, my materials background and my geotechnical background to evaluate several interrelated aspects of a project. Attorneys like for an expert to be able to deal with multiple subjects on a project when those subjects are interrelated. It makes his job more difficult if he has to deal with 3 different experts for a floor slab problem for instance. One has to be able to consider the structural component of the slab, the geotechnical influence and certainly deal with the materials in the context of concrete technology. It doesn't hurt to have a bit of construction experience, testing experience and design experience.
Msquared48 knows this first hand as he's about to tackle all of this! Good luck, Mike.