Before the 1975 enactment of Rules 702 to 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts could admit expert testimony only if it was not within the common knowledge of the layperson and if the expert satisfied a three-step procedure. However, Rule 702 lets almost anyone qualify as an expert on the basis of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Once qualified, an expert can express opinions going to the ultimate issues in the case. Experts can also express conclusions without expressing the basis for their opinions and can base testimony on hearsay if the hearsay is reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Courts need to abandon their extreme approach to interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence, however. Attorneys must urge judges to follow the recent view of the Fifth Circuit and to scrutinize expert testimony more carefully than they have in the past. If the courts continue to follow the liberal approach, cross-examiners should use the Rules as a framework to their advantage to counteract the effect of the expert's testimony. 133 footnotes.