Psychologists are often asked to testify in court. However, concerns have been expressed in both the legal and psychological literatures about the quality of these services. This article presents survey results comparing the practice patterns of generally licensed psychologists with those of specialist forensic diplomates in providing risk evaluations. Results suggest that general clinicians frequently perform these evaluations, but forensic diplomates use more modern risk instruments, are more aware of the scientific literature, and provide the court with more information about the scientific basis of their testimony. The implication of these results for legal professionals, psychologist training, and practice are discussed.