There has been some publicity about a recent case, JSC  Privatbank v Kolomoisky, in which past judicial criticism of an expert were raised, suggesting among other things that experts have a duty to disclose such criticism. Less attention has been paid to the issues that led to the expert’s problems being aired in court.

The expert concerned was a fellow of ICAEW at the time of writing his reports but it transpired that by the time of the hearing he no longer was and more importantly his membership had been ‘Cessated’ and he had been the subject of a severe reprimand in relation to two disciplinary matters in 2023.  None of this information had been disclosed to the other side or to the court.

The judge made it clear that this was a very serious problem, “In my view, where an expert presents his evidence as a member of a professional organisation, which is expected by him to give the court assurance as to his ability to act in the case, he is under a duty to inform the court if his membership has ceased, more particularly where the cessation is linked to disciplinary proceedings against him.  The judges view was that the issue and the way the expert had dealt with it undermined the court’s confidence in his ability to give precedence to his overriding duty to the court when faced with other conflicting interests.

The existence of judicial criticism of the same expert from a case in 2018 was also relevant, and not disclosed, although the judge made no specific points about whether it should have been.

There’s a message here for both experts and their instructing solicitors.

For lawyers it is always worth checking an expert out by verifying their membership and searching for cases where they have been mentioned.  For experts, it really is important to maintain  your professional status and to make sure that if it changes for any reason you update your CV, online profiles and above all any lawyers you’re working with. You can be sure that an assiduous lawyer somewhere will check and even if you have decided to cancel a membership  for your own reasons its better to  say something immediately than find yourself being challenged in court!

 

The Academy is active in working with the judiciary and legal profession to ensure that expert views are taken into account and that members have access to the best possible advice and guidance.

Our Judicial Committee publishes the authoritative guidance for experts so you can be sure that you are adopting best practice. This includes for example the Model Form of Expert’s Report and Guidance Notes on Meetings of Experts, Contingency Fees & Remote Evidence.

We also provide practical advice and guidance on topics such as GDPR, Joint Statements, privilege and so on which is available at no charge to members in the Academy’s Knowledge Hub.

As a member you can also call our Technical Helpline for help and advice on ethical and practical issues from dealing with instructions to getting paid.

Ignoring AI for the moment, the use of computer models of various kinds has become routine in most if not all professions, whether it’s a simple spreadsheet or a sophisticated engineering in model. It should be no surprise then when such models  make an appearance alongside experts in disputes.

Some recent cases though point up the importance of the expertise that underlies any model and that an expert’s choice of inputs and their interpretation of the outputs is critical. Andrews v Kronospan is a case about dust, smells and other nuisance alleged to be caused by a factory. Experts in dust and wood fibre analysis met and agreed a set of parameters to be used in modelling the likely extend and impact of the factory’s activities, but both the Defendant’s experts for different reasons decide sometime later that these parameters were invalid. They came up with different parameters and different results, that favoured their client, although both provided detailed explanations and reasoning for their decision.

As the judge explained, neither expert has “been able to persuade me that their change of approach was not at least partially influenced by their desire to see whether or not their further analysis would benefit their clients’ case more than their existing analysis. I am not for one moment suggesting that they did not fully and properly discharge their duties as independent experts but I do consider that their evidence has to be considered with some caution as a result. Moreover, I am not satisfied on my analysis of the evidence that I can safely prefer their opinions based on their changed approach to those made by their opposite experts who proceeded on the basis of the initial common approach. “

In a completely different field, fingerprint analysis, there was no criticism of the inputs to an automated fingerprint comparison system. The difficulty was that one expert accepted the computer output as unequivocally correct, whereas the other, with the benefit of 30 years working on fingerprints was able to explain why some features of a fingerprint should be ignored because they typically appear when the print is smeared or of poor quality. Ultimately the judge preferred a manual approach illuminated by scientific knowledge and expertise over one that  treated the computer model as an infallible black box.

 

The message to experts is clear, you need to understand not just how to use a computer model, but what the right inputs are and how to interpret the outputs. Otherwise as the saying goes in the IT Industry you will have Garbage In and Garbage Out!

 

The Academy of Experts has a rigorous accreditation process to ensure that Practicing Members have appropriate professional skills and qualifications, have been trained in or have experience of  the role and process of being an expert witness and can provide appropriate references or evidence of their skills.

If you’re a lawyer looking for an expert you can search the Academy’s register for an accredited expert or contact us directly for assistance.

If you would like to join the Academy but are unsure if you have the appropriate skills please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we will help you identify the appropriate membership level for you.  You don’t have to be already practising as an expert or have testified in court to join.

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.

September’s newsletter covered Expert Witnesses and their Credibility, Top Tips for Expert Witnesses on managing their instructing solicitors,  news that Low-Value RTA Claims will go to Automatic Mediation and many other topics.

We also  put together a selection of events around the world of interest to members including

• Hong Kong Society of Construction Law Conference – 7^th November
• ICAEW Forensic Group Conference – 19^th November
• Expert Witness Courses in HK – 24^th, 25^th & 27^th November
• Online Member Meeting on Money Laundering – 12^th November

Closer to home the Academy’s AGM in October will bring the opportunity for Members to elect their representatives to Council for next year and November our biannual Council meeting.

We’re also in the process of forming an Insurance Interest Group. If you’re  member and are an insurance expert and would like to find out more about this Group, please contact the TAE office.

If you don’t receive our regular please contact the TAE office or sign up to our newsletter if you’re not  member.

Most people will be aware by now that a pilot scheme for “access to public domain documents” in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Court and the Financial List is due to start in October.  Guidance and details of the pilot aren’t out yet but it’s expected that at least some expert reports will become publicly available.

In the meantime experts who are concerned about the possibility should start to think about making sure the opinions they provide are consistent, not just within a given report but within all their reports. Of course that’s not really a new requirement and from time to time an expert will be challenged to explain why their opinion today seems to differ from a previous opinion.

That’s exactly what happened in Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare a trademark dispute about the design of an ‘on-body’ glucose monitor. The Defendant’s market research expert had examined surveys conducted by the Claimant ‘s expert who unfortunately was unable to testify because of ill-health.  This placed more emphasis than normal on her evidence which was critical of the approach used in the surveys that supported the claim.

She was also challenged to explain why her opinions appear to vary in this case compared to her views on what the claimant’s counsel viewed as an equivalent survey in Tesco v Lidl. Fortunately she appears to not only have held entirely consistent views but was well-prepared enough to, as the judge explained “emphatically and, in my view, convincingly, rejected the suggestion that there was no material difference between the Traditional Survey and the Lidl survey.”

What this case does emphasis is firstly the need  to be objective and consistent  between cases and in the light of the impending Open Justice pilot experts should add a new question to their internal checklist. Not only should they ask ‘what would I say if were on the other side’ but ‘is this the same opinion that I gave last time and if not, why not?’

Secondly if you have appeared in court and your evidence has been discussed (or from this year made public in full)  you would be well advised to read up on any relevant cases before giving evidence!

The Academy’s Knowledge Hub. includes practical advice and guidance for experts who want to check their practe, including for example the Model Form of Expert’s Report and Guidance Notes on Meetings of Experts, Contingency Fees & Remote Evidence. As a member you can also call our Technical Helpline for help and advice on ethical and practical issues from dealing with instructions to getting paid.

 

The start of a new school term often feels like a time for new beginnings at work as well. If you’re looking to expand your raneg of work or just feel its time to think again about your approach to marketing our next Member event is designed to help you do just that.

Hear from author and social media expert on why we need to have an online presence for career success and top tips for how you can create a polished profile. The session is highly interactive and there will be an exercise for people to complete.

Tim will walk you through how the world has changed with social media and how that impacts your business and you professionally. If you are looking to raise your profile, showcase your achievements, or looking for that next job role or referrals, people are looking for these things online.

• How to have a strong online presence so you are not invisible in this modern world
• How to be found when people are looking for expert witnesses
• How to get referrals either work related or job related

This is an online event for members only 12.30pm 15th September 2025. 

 

 

Being instructed as an expert witness can be an interesting and fulfilling aspect of professional life, but it’s not without its challenges. One of the most common (and under-discussed) issues experts face is how to manage their instructing solicitors.

It’s easy to assume that once you’re engaged, expectations are fixed and your role is simply to deliver. But in reality, managing your instructing solicitor is a key part of ensuring that what you deliver is useful, compliant, and capable of standing up in court.

Academy Council Member Helen Gregory of Opus Forensic Accounting has helpfully provided her five top tips for how expert witnesses can work most effectively with their instructing solicitors.

1. Be realistic about deadlines — and say no if needed

There’s a temptation to take on every instruction that comes your way, particularly if you’re self-employed and don’t know where the next one is coming from. But accepting unrealistic deadlines can cause problems for all involved. Rushed reports are more likely to contain errors, lack clarity, or fail to meet procedural requirements. And in the worst-case scenario, they can be thrown out by the court entirely.

It’s better to decline a job than to submit something half-baked. Be clear at the outset about what’s feasible and remember to factor in time not just for writing the report, but for reviewing documents, requesting further information, meetings with the solicitor and client, responding to queries, and navigating any surprises.

2. Build in contingency: Something will crop up

In theory, you receive a neat, complete bundle of documents and a clear brief. In practice, things are rarely that tidy. Documents arrive late or in multiple batches, some are missing or out of order, and the questions you need to address will take time to answer.

You need to allow for contingency: time to request clarifications, review additional information, and think critically about what you’re being asked to do. The more flexibility you build in, the more likely you are to produce a report that is robust, complete, and helpful to the court.

3. Understand the limits of your visibility

One key challenge is that, as an expert, you often operate in isolation from the wider case. You may see only a snapshot of the full picture. It’s important to remain focused on your instructed area and resist the temptation to speculate beyond it.

At the same time, remember that lack of context doesn’t remove your duty of care. If documents appear incomplete, if your opinion feels influenced, or if something doesn’t sit right, you must raise it. You are reporting to the court, not acting as an advocate for either party.

4. Deliver bad news where it’s warranted

It’s not always easy to say your client doesn’t have a case. But as an expert witness, you have a duty to give your honest, professional opinion, even if that opinion isn’t what the instructing solicitor wants to hear.

Be aware that some may (consciously or otherwise) attempt to steer your opinion. Stay alert to missing evidence, biased questions, or subtle attempts to frame a narrative. Your integrity and credibility depend on your ability to remain independent and evidence-based.

5. Know the rules and review your report thoroughly

Expert reports must comply with the relevant Civil, Criminal or Family Procedure Rules. That includes formatting, content, and declarations. A technical report that omits the correct statement of truth or includes the wrong version risks being ruled inadmissible.

It’s also essential to re-read what you’ve written. That may sound obvious, but when deadlines loom and multiple drafts are flying around, it’s easy to miss a critical detail. The best option is to ask someone else unconnected to the case to read and cast it, but that may not always be possible so do make time to review your own work with a clear head.  You may be cross-examined on your report, so make sure you’re comfortable defending it.

Final thoughts

Whatever your discipline, acting as an expert means more than just knowing your subject. It requires planning, time management, self-awareness, and the confidence to push back when needed.

Clear communication with instructing solicitors, realistic boundaries, and careful preparation are vital. If in doubt, The Academy of Experts offers training, guidance and support to help navigate the more complex aspects of expert witness work.

Helen is a Partner at Opus Forensic Accounting, part of the Opus Business Advisory Group, and brings over 25 years’ experience in civil and criminal investigations, commercial disputes, and matrimonial matters. A trusted expert witness and active figure in the sector, including roles with The Academy of Experts and the South West Fraud Forum, she recently joined Opus, a national advisory firm with 14 offices, 35 Partners, and specialist divisions spanning restructuring, strategic advisory, forensic accounting, and equity.

Insights into expert practice in different jurisdictions can be very helpful, not least because they often show that there are good and bad experts everywhere.  DHV v Motor Insurers’ Bureau was an unusual case about the compensation due to a pedestrian injured by an insured driver in Spain. Various quirks of the law and the claim meant that it was heard in the UK but the judge needed to apply the Spanish Baremo  system (ready-reckoner in English) to assess the size of the claim.

This meant that the judge had to consider the evidence of 8 Spanish experts specifically accident reconstruction, Spanish law, actuarial and medico-legal experts. The results can only be described as mixed bag.

At the top end of the scale the judge praised the Defendant’s actuarial expert as “knowledgeable and also very fair-minded” reaching some conclusions that favoured the Claimant. The Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert was also careful and measured in his evidence, “always at pains to alert the court to the limits of his evidence and expertise and when challenged over a gap in the evidence accepted that he should have covered the specific issue.   Similarly their expert in Spanish law was “aware of his limitations and balanced”.

The Claimant’s actuarial expert was somewhat less useful to the court, having applied a “mix and match” methodology rather than strictly following Baremo and their accident reconstruction expert, while being given credit by the judge for the difficulty of giving evidence through an interpreter, was unimpressive in parts and of little assistance to the court.

The quality of evidence  sadly had yet further to fall. The Claimant’s Spanish law  expert was  “in certain vital respects an unsatisfactory witness” . This expert had copied from a colleague’s report, without citing it, initially denied copying and then excused it as resulting from the use of a ‘central database’ of material. Sadly that excuse was fatally undermined by the presence of details specific to the case that appeared word for word in both reports.

Heading down the scale the Defendant’s medico-legal expert, while “an engaging and affable character “ and eager to try to assist the court, was “at points unbalanced in his conclusions, not motivated by a hostile attitude towards the claimant, but rather an insistent adherence to his opinion being right. There were occasions when he only accepted the conclusions of other experts with reluctance. “

And bringing up the rear his opposite number had not only failed to read both sets of medical reports, something the judge charitably attributed to a misconception, but replicated a significant passage from an article in his report without attributing it.  Rather than simply admitting the error  he compounded it by offering obviously incorrect explanations in oral evidence. While nothing critical turned on the article these issues “caused the court to think carefully about his openness”.

There are many lessons to be learned from this judge’s careful review of the expert evidence, not least that judges are much more interested in facts and careful analysis than they are by  confident presentation and advocacy.  As Dias J put it “This case was not short of advocates; it needed impartial expert advice.”

Established members will be familiar with the Academy’s training courses which include mock cross-examination to ensure that new experts are fully prepared, and would not make the mistakes cited here. If it’s been some time since you attended training it may be worth considering a refresher. For example, many experts rarely give evidence in court so a repeat of ‘Into Court’ might be handy if you have a court appearance looming.

Most of our training courses are now delivered online so your location doesn’t matter and members receive a 25% discount.  We can also run in-house training for larger consultancies, please contact us for details.

The Academy is the professional society and accrediting body for expert witnesses of all disciplines, independently run by experts for experts and those using them.

We’re proud to have  Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury as our President with support from a range of legal luminaries with Chief Executive Nicola Cohen running the team who support members on a day to day basis.

But the  great strength of the Academy is the contribution made by its members to the direction and running of the organisation through the Executive who direct management & finance and Council who set  the agenda for the future and provide expert-led input into our guidance and activities.

Our AGM will be on 14^th October 2025 and this online event will bring the opportunity for members to elect their representatives to Council for next year.  If you’re a member and haven’t received an invitation please contact the Academy office.

Council meets formally twice a year and we have working groups for subjects as diverse as marketing, standards, formal consultations and AI. Current members include architects, accountants, insurance & IT experts. We’re keen to hear from members in as wide a range of specialisms as possible so whatever your interests please get in touch.

Council Members are elected for a three year term and may hold office for no more than two consecutive terms. Details of the roles and duties are available here.

If you would like to stand for election please complete the online Nomination Form and Election Address by noon on 3rd September. Please note that only Full Members and Fellows are eligible to stand for Council but Associate Members who are interested in contributing are welcome to get in touch, there is always something you can do to help!

Fans of the late, great Steve Wright will remember the amusing and amazing factoids that peppered his afternoon radio show. But ‘factoid’ also means something that is repeated or believed but isn’t actually a fact.

Experts of course need to make sure they only deal with established facts and make it clear when there are disagreements or doubt over the status of the assumed facts that underlie their evidence.

Two recent cases have pointed up the need for care in this area.  In Toppan Holdings Ltd & Anor v Augusta/Simply , a case involving defects in the design and construction of a care home, expert accountancy and valuation evidence was required. Unfortunately while all gave helpful guidance to the court as the judge commented the Defendant’s expert was “in greater difficulties because of the complete absence of any factual evidence advanced by Simply.  Many parts of his report were based upon assumptions which were speculative and not supported by any factual evidence.” His cause was also not assisted by the lack of any mention of defects in his report. When cross examined, “he agreed he should have considered the defects but could not explain whether it was a deliberate omission or “… whether I just missed this.  I don’t know.”  This was more than somewhat surprising given the case was principally about the impact the defects had on the value and profitability of care home.”

In Ruby Properties v  James Alistair Watt  a dispute about the sale and purchase of a pilot training school the accountancy expert was not provided with data from an account system or the accounts for the company. Instead it was a document prepared in part from an accounts system and partly from witnesses recollections and assumptions and without the original records being disclosed.  Once the witness had conceded that “the spreadsheet was very much his subjective assessment which he had done from “feeling,  rather than mathematically” the accountancy experts evidence was, as the judge put it had “no factual foundation”.

It is clearly difficult for an expert when a client failed to provide the information they need.  An expert in Australia demonstrated that the best way to deal with this issue is to explain the limitations of the evidence and the limitations that places on your report. In that caser the judge concluded that within those limitations the expert “was entitled to express significant concern as to the profitability and financial viability of the entities”  and that “the evidence enables the Court to have confidence in his valuation opinion”.

The moral of these stories is to be wary of incomplete or unsupported facts and make sure that you state any issues or limitations in your report. For advice and guidance on giving expert evidence, including our  Model Form of Expert’s Report and  practical advice and guidance on topics such as GDPR, Joint Statements, privilege and so on see the Academy’s Knowledge Hub.

ure is from The Guardian.

While the courts don’t close for summer in the way they used to there’s definitely a lull in legal activity in August, in the northern hemisphere at least.  So whether you’re spending the summer on a  beach or at your desk writing reports and dreaming of the beach this is a good time to think about the best way to maintain and extend your legal network.

The type of lawyer you need to  meet will depend on your specialism  but contacts with solicitors, barristers and in-house counsel are all useful and getting to know barrister’s clerks in your area is a good idea too. In the UK London International Disputes Week in early June has grown enormously over the last few years and involves a paying conference and an extensive programme of fringe events put on by law firms, chambers and expert consultancies. If you can’t wait till next June there are plenty of other events in London and around the world.

For our international members or those who fancy a trip abroad there are dispute and arbitration conferences around the world, these are just a few of the possibilities coming up.

Dubai arbitration week  10-14 November 2025

Dublin International Disputes Week   20^th-24^th October  2025

London Arbitration Week   1^st-5^th  December 2025

Singapore Convention Week  25 -29 Aug 2025

If you prefer to meet lawyers with specific dispute areas in mind you may find specialist groups more helpful. For example, The Society for Construction Law organises regular lunches in major cities outside London as well as site visits (for members only), such as a trip to a Green Hydrogen production facility in Birmingham.

In short, whatever kind of expert you are and wherever you are there are opportunities to meet lawyers and build relationships with them that will support your business. Though of course the Academy also puts on regular events, recent topics have included the use of statistics in expert evidence, updates to CPR and conflicts of interest and recordings of past meetings are available in our Knowledge Hub.

All our events provide the opportunity to learn from and be supported by other experts, something that many members find invaluable. Members may invite guests to any event, see our events calendar for full details and to book.