Given how  often lawyers and experts complain about encountering hired guns in litigation it sometimes seems that every other expert must be crossing the line from independent, objective opinion into full-blown bias and advocacy for their client.

In reality our adversarial system means that any expert other than a Single Joint Expert will spend a good deal more time with their own client and legal team than the opposition . Your legal team will typically be more interested in picking holes in the other side’s arguments and expert reports than checking that your report is 100% objective so it’s easy to slide, almost unconsciously, into positions that favour your side.

Judges understand this to some extent and  as long as the bias is not too extreme may confine themselves to a wry comment. For example, “Both experts on occasions were over-optimistic in favour of the party who instructed them.” and “both experts at times had seemed, at least in their reports, to have adopted a rather more critically rigorous approach to assessing the quantum of the other parties’ claims than when reviewing their own client’s.”

But expert evidence is very important to the courts and experts are rightly held to very high standards, so a good starting point to is to try to avoid even such mild criticism. The simplest way to do this is to read your own report  as though you were the other side’s expert. Are there gaps in your reasoning? Is there evidence  that might contradict your conclusions? If you’ve discounted witness evidence or documents, why have you done that? Is it justified?  Have you set too high or too low a standard for professional conduct in your analysis?

The key question is does this report help the judge to understand the case and form a truly objective view of the expert issues. Then when you arrive in court you will be confident that your report will stand up to even the most difficult cross-examination.  In a recent case, for example,  a valuation expert who the judge considered to be unquestionably an impressive expert was subjected to trial by ambush while giving evidence. Fortunately his expertise and independence mean that when “presented 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

By contrast in a clinical negligence case an expert had based all her opinions and written her report entirely based on fact that was not stated in a witness statement and had been completely undermined during the trial. The judge commented that she found this very concerning, “as it appeared to me that the expert was:

i) holding firmly to an opinion which was based on one perceived fact which she elicited from the Second Defendant’s witness statement (that he had the diagnosed pyelonephritis in mind at the index consultation, albeit that his witness statement was clear at the start that he had no recollection of the Claimant at all), even when the basis of that perceived fact had been fatally undermined;

ii) trespassing on the judicial function to find, and rely on as a fact (or as her belief) that he was considering pyelonephritis in the index consultation; and

iii) seeking to advocate on behalf of the Second Defendant, thus undermining her own independence. “

 

Unsurprisingly the other expert’s evidence was preferred, something that  could easily have been avoided by a careful and considered review of the report and the evidence by the expert and her client’s legal team.

 

The Academy’s 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.

Our image is from GOG.com