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.

A recent case about a snowmobile accident (Cannestra v McLaren Automotive Events) has been much commented on because the Claimant seems to have constructed a version of events somewhat at odds with his comments at the time that ”it was all his own fault” . But as the judge sat through the expert evidence from both sides he could have been forgiven for thinking he was trapped in a story with an unremittingly downward plot, like Hamlet or Kafka’s Metamorphosis.

At the top end of the scale was an expert whose report was “thoughtful and well researched. He gave evidence openly and flexibly, as an expert should. “  but the judge commented with some puzzlement at the omission, presumably for tactical reasons, of an opinion on a technical key issue in the case.

Stepping down a level an expert who was clearly doing his best to assist the Court and was “precise, logical and well prepared” was undermined by a tendency to focus on his party’s case and ignore the other side’s. An issue that in other circumstances might have drawn more substantive criticism.

Aa third expert managed to take things down another notch.  The evidence of a helpful and straight forward expert was  “deeply faulted by inaccurate and unlikely assumptions” not least that his assumption of maximum acceleration would have led to a completely different outcome than the accident that in fact took place.

But the nadir of the expert evidence was reached by an expert who appears to have taken an extraordinarily combative approach. The judge concluded he was “a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the guides’ evidence, he positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour. His report was littered with errors and illogicality. His research on modes of operation of SMs was flimsy and unimpressive. He strayed into accident reconstruction. He made things up in the witness box and he estimated facts when the actual facts were staring him in the face.   I am unable to rely on the vast majority of his evidence. “.

Unfortunately experts can’t generally rely on their opposite numbers drawing judicial fire quite so effectively. So it’s critical to remember that where there are two factual versions of events an expert should consider both versions and any assumptions must be realistic and checked for illogical consequences.

For guidance on best practice such the Model Form of Expert’s Report and Guidance Notes on Meetings of Experts, Contingency Fees & Remote Evidence see the Academy’s Knowledge Hub.

Given that experts are always aware they may be criticised by a judge it’s understandable they might feel a little smug or a frisson of schadenfreude to know that from time to time judges and tribunals are themselves criticised quite severely for their approach to expert evidence.

In an appeal in relation to Disability Living Allowance that had clearly dragged on for many years the Social Security Commissioner concluded that “ The main reason for allowing this appeal has occurred in too many other appeals.  It is wrong to dismiss evidence of a medical practitioner from one party as not “independent” without indicating why while at the same time accepting medical evidence from the other party as “independent”.  He noted that the tribunal had “dismissed without consideration the evidence of a consultant specialist at a major British hospital who specialises in precisely the problem from which the appellant is suffering, and who is in addition fully recognised as an expert medical witness.  That is plainly absurd.”

Similar criticism applied in a completely different field when a First Tier Tribunal include various additional items in an order for remediation of a building fire prevention measures under the Building Safety Act 2022 (Monier Road v Blomfield). In this case the FTT did not set out its reasons, or any professional guidance or previous cases to support the new items or give witnesses or experts on either side the chance to consider them.  As the Upper Tribunal commented “We really have no idea why the panel’s expertise led it to contrary conclusions; nor have the parties. Insofar as the FTT’s decision was reached in reliance, in some undisclosed way, on its own expertise it was unfair and for this additional reason must be set aside.”

In essence both tribunals were held to the same standards as an expert, that is they needed to provide the evidence and reasoning that supported their conclusions and had failed to do so.

Having said that  it is common for parties to attempt to overturn a judge’s view of expert evidence and then fail.  A prominent recent example involved a complex technology case (IBM v LZLabs) in which the expert and factual evidence was deeply entwined.  Despite a judgement described by them as “an impressive piece of work” the appeal court was faced with a  ‘kitchen sink’ application where every adverse finding was in issue.  Refusing permission to appeal they cited the fact that the judge had made copious references to the expert evidence in her judgment and for each ground of appeal had considered the evidence appropriately, together with other evidence where relevant.

So again, applying the same standards as for experts in this case the judge was found to have met the standard. The fact that judges and tribunals sometimes fail to meet the standard should remind all experts that this is a challenging role and that it’s important for experts to keep up to date.

The Academy of Experts provides regularly updated guidance from our  Judicial Committee 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. 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

Experts who work in the sectors where most clients are funded by Legal Aid, notably the Family and Criminal  courts, will know that the Legal Aid Authority (LAA)  operates strict controls over the  fees payable to experts. Their guidance on Expert witnesses in legal aid cases  includes a set of fee rates and for some specialisms defines a standard number of hours that can be charged for a given type of assessment.

 

However, it is fairly common for the specialist nature of the expert work involved to require a higher fee rate or more hours than the LAA would typically approve. When all parties bar one is legally aided this has led historically to the non-legally-aided party picking up the tab.  A recent case was brought by the London Borough of Barnet with the aim of exploring whether this was correct and to try to standardise the approach taken by the LAA when approving non-standard expert fees.

The judge summarised the situation as follows;  “In each case, the fees to be charged by one or more of the experts to be instructed exceeded the rate that, after consideration, the LAA was prepared to pay. All of the parties, save for the local authority, are legally aided. The court had previously directed that the fees were to be split equally between the parties, including the local authority, but the LAA was only prepared to sanction payment by the legally aided parties at a lower rate, leaving a short-fall in the overall fee. The point, not unreasonably, made by Barnet was that the court should not simply turn to the local authority as a matter of routine and expect it to cover the short-fall, without at least first undertaking a thorough exploration of any reasonable alternative courses of action.

The point is one that arises regularly in cases throughout England and Wales and is of obvious practical and financial importance in the management of care proceedings. Some months prior to the hearing, following receipt of a letter signed by 88 different local authorities raising the point, I invited Mr Justice Williams to convene a sub-group of the ‘President’s Experts Working Group’, which he chairs, [the ‘experts group’] to look at the issue. During the hearing I was informed that the experts group, which had been assisted by attendance from the LAA, was soon to conclude its work. I was also informed that the LAA was in the process of reviewing its guidance on this point. In the circumstances, having endorsed interim funding arrangements which had permitted the expert instructions in the two cases to proceed, I delayed preparation of this judgment so that it might encompass the outcome of the experts group’s discussions and the revised LAA guidance. “

In the event the fees for the specific cases raised by Barnet were agreed, but they illustrate the importance of appropriate expertise being involved, in both cases the opinions were required to decide whether injuries to very young babies were accidental or not.

However, the outcome of the experts group is helpfully summarised in the judgement which explains that “it is not the intention of the LAA that local authorities should make up a shortfall in expert fees (other than in unusual circumstances)” and sets out the general principles that apply. The judgement also sets out a template, agreed by the LAA, for court orders made when approving the instruction of an expert where the hours or rates will exceed the LAA rates/hours.

Members working in the Family Courts may want to direct their instructing lawyers to this guidance and template if circumstances appear to warrant an unusual level of expert fees or more hours than the standard assessment.

The Academy of Experts provides a range of authoritative guidance on experts role in the courts and 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. You can also search our website for news and guidance on Family and other matters.

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

One of the sad things about being an adult is no-one gives you a gold star or a sticker when you’ve done a good job. Similarly criticism of experts generally gets much more air-time than praise and sometimes the only way to know when experts have done a good job is when a judge simply says ‘I received expert reports from X and Y’ and nothing more.

So it was heartening to see a judge in the family court  take the time to express how challenging the job can be and give credit to an expert for this. In a difficult family case he considered evidence from a CAFCASS expert (CAFCASS is the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service which advises the family courts about the welfare of children and what is in their best interests).

The judge thanked the expert sincerely for her help and expertise and noted that “In the court’s experience, CAFCASS find they “cannot do right for doing wrong” – in that each parent will often pick and choose which bits they agree with or take the view that any disagreement from the expert with their case is a personal attack on them or some form of persecution. In the court’s experience of such experts, they are genuine, hardworking, over worked and underappreciated. In the present case the court found the evidence to be both earnest and fair.“

The lengths to which parents sometimes go in criticising experts is illustrated by an Australian case (SSYL and The CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 388 (16 April 2025)) involving a disability assessment. The parents reported the expert to their professional body and accused her of violating “numerous standards and professional behaviour”. They then sought to have the expert’s report disregarded by the court.

Having heard evidence from the expert and witnesses the Tribunal observed that “the entire assessment was recorded and that no issue was raised by the Applicant or his wife at any stage prior to the completion of her report.” They found it appropriate to rely on the expert’s report based on the evident experience, balance and thoughtful approach taken by the expert. As they noted “She was the only expert witness to properly identify and appropriately report on the risk of family violence and to proffer a nuanced explanation for the reduction in the Applicant’s capacity over the last few years. She also cautioned the Tribunal against any dramatic reduction in support for the Applicant. “

Experts working in these, and  other less contentious areas, should be heartened that the courts do value their expertise and fairness and will resist unreasonable personal criticism. Of course all experts have a responsibility to make sure they keep up the high standards the courts expect. If you need help in any aspect of expert work the Academy’s Knowledge Hub contains authoritative guidance from our judicial committee and practical advice on a range of topics. 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.

Lawyers spend a good deal of time discussing timetables for disclosure, witness evidence and expert reports but it seems that sometimes they forget that a failure to raise expert issues at the right time can have serious consequences.

For example, expert evidence about signatures is commonly needed for inheritance disputes but in Lynch v Murphy in the Irish High Court a claim was dismissed, in part, because the expert report that was claimed to exist had not been served.   In Huang & Wang v Credit Suisse the claimant’s application for summary judgement was not accompanied by any expert reports, despite the validity of signatures being key to the case. The judge described the claimant’s attitude as “an oddity I am unable to fathom” and refused their application.

While these are extreme cases a more common occurrence is for addition expert evidence and complaints to be introduced as the legal process goes on, sometimes in supplemental reports, in submissions and even in the witness box. In Nicholas & Ors v Thomas & Anor, a case about falcons rather than ducks, in which one neighbour accused the other of harassing them and causing such as nuisance as to cause a high mortality rate in their falconry business.

The defence expert was heavily criticised by the claimant’s counsel not least for producing a supplementary report during the trial. As the judge said this criticism  was not well-founded because the report was responding to new evidence introduced by the claimant the day before the trial started. Having finished all cross-examinations the claimant’s closing submissions then invited the judge “to act upon suggested errors in Dr Forbes’s response to ROP’s Summary which had not occurred to them before he left the witness box. “ Unsurprisingly the judge was not especially impressed by this approach.

The eventual outcome  was that only  8 out of 34 allegations were proven  with a value  of £300k out of £1M originally claimed, which rather suggests that a more orderly approach to the expert evidence who have been more cost-effective for all parties.

The moral of all these cases is that if expert evidence is needed then it should be obtained as soon as possible and cover all of the technical issues that need to be covered. If you’ve need an expert in a hurry, whether for ducks or falcons, then TAE’s ExpertSearch can help. Our register of accredited experts is easily searchable or you can contact TAE and we’ll do our best to help.