As Tolstoy might have said if writing about litigation rather than Anna Karenina,  “All good experts are alike; each poor expert is unhelpful in their own way”. There have been some notable examples of poor experts over the past year, from those who simply don’t have the right expertise or understanding of their role to those (thankfully very unusual) experts who understand the role perfectly but have chosen to fight their client’s corner rather than help the court.

Judges understandably spend more time explaining why they don’t accept an expert’s evidence than praising experts who, from the court’s perspective, are simply doing the job they are supposed to do. Often the only feedback a good expert gets is a few positive words but our word cloud summarising this year’s comments demonstrates that good experts have some very simple things in common. From a judge’s point of view they are clear, helpful and fair. To give some colour to that perhaps obvious statement, here are a few of the more loquacious judicial comments about experts from 2025;

• This was unquestionably an impressive expert. He had a ready command of the details both of the market at the time and of the issues in this case. He was fair minded and demonstrated the independence that makes experts so valuable to the court, readily recognising criticisms of the Valuation and his own methodology where he considered them to be fair. At times I felt that the Claimant verged on, and indeed strayed into, conducting trial by ambush in the course of the cross examination, presenting him with new material while in the course of giving evidence; he engaged with the new figures presented to him and was able to offer clear, comprehensive answers to the questions put.
• It is clear that each of the 12 expert witnesses had a wealth of qualifications, experience and/or expertise in their respective disciplines and used their understanding and knowledge to assist the Court. The Court is immensely grateful to them.
• Whilst she had less experience to give technical evidence on the main issues in this dispute her oral evidence was thoughtful and helpful.  She was at all times mindful of her overriding duties to the court and gave clear answers to the difficult questions put to her.
• The court greatly benefited from the expertise and thoughtful consideration of two eminent consultant surgeons. It was undoubtedly the right decision to grant permission for their testifying. They were rather different personalities, but each possessed intellect and were articulate, frank and forthright – precisely what the court would expect of high-quality experts. The court is grateful to them both.

Such comments are a reminder that as well as specialist professional skills and qualifications experts need the ability to communicate clearly both in writing and verbally, especially in court. The legal environment is very different from ‘normal’ professional practice so anyone considering acting as an expert needs to understand that environment,  the rules that apply to expert evidence and how to avoid the pitfalls that can lead to a difficult time in court and potentially public criticism from a Judge.

The Academy’s training programme is designed to help already  skilled professionals through the basic foundations to a mock cross-examination to ensure that they are fully prepared. Our training courses are primarily delivered online but we run some face to face courses  in London and Hong Kong. We can also run in-house training for larger consultancies, please contact us for details.

Members receive a 25% discount on training, if you would like to join the Academy please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we will help you identify the appropriate membership level for you. Other benefits of membership include guidance and advice on being an expert, regular member meetings to discuss issues affecting experts and access to specialised PI insurance.