Trial consulting is fast becoming de rigeur in major litigation. This article first reviews the growth of the field and its most common applications. Coinciding with the growth, however, have been mounting concerns. Is trial consulting truly effective? Does it impair the impartiality of the jury? Is it fair for only one side to have a trial consultant? Even if not outcome determinative, does consulting undermine the public perception of jury trial legitimacy? Further, notwithstanding their claims of behavioral science expertise and the hefty cost of their services, trial consultants are not required to be licensed. There are no meaningful or binding ethical standards governing the consultant's relations with clients, the court or prospective jurors. This article examines these issues and considers the prospects of various responsive proposals for reform.