Two recent articles in the Guardian cited the appeal court’s over-turning of a doctor’s conviction and an assortment of criticisms of experts made over recent years in highly critical articles, calling for compulsory training and registration of experts. Our Chair, William Hooper responded on our behalf as follows;

Recent articles have discussed concerns about expert evidence in the Courts and argued for greater regulation.

An expert witness is someone with specialist knowledge which the Court considers useful to itself in resolving a case.  The expert’s task is to explain the significance of technical material to the Court so that the judge (in a civil case) or jury (in a criminal case) can understand it and include it as part of their considerations. The decision-makers weight evidence, including that from experts, as they see fit.

The expert witness does not decide the case in either the civil or criminal courts.

Technical evidence can be complex.  It often happens that expert witnesses appointed by the two sides agree on some points of interpretation and disagree on others.  Expert witnesses may be subjected to robust cross-examination to detect error, incompetence or the hired gun.

Your writer calls for greater regulation but appropriate regulation has been introduced.  Instructing solicitors are required, when instructing experts, to inform them of their duties under the Civil (or Criminal or Family) Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions.  These cover the minimum legal obligations for expert witnesses.

The Academy of Experts, since 1987 a professional and accrediting body for expert witnesses, agrees that training is appropriate to ensure that those appointed fully understand their obligations and how those apply in a variety of potentially difficult situations.  Such training has been available for many years from The Academy of Experts and other sources.

Rather than the imposition of additional regulation, which may result in the exclusion of experts with the best experience and expertise to assist the Court, it is to be hoped that the CPS and instructing lawyers will carry out appropriate due diligence and choose to instruct properly qualified and trained expert witnesses.

William Hooper

Chair, The Academy of Experts

3 Gray’s Inn Square, London WC1R 5AH

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

While we still have London Legal Walk on 17^th June and  a session AI and Expert Evidence on 3rd July to look forward to those will be our last Member events until the autumn.

Over the last few years we’ve had talks about Public Enquiries, Civil procedure Rules, AI, Collaborative Contracts, Use of Statistics and many other topics of interest to experts. We’re already starting to plan our Autumn programme and would welcome ideas for events and speakers from members and the wider legal & expert community.

Is there a topic close to your heart you think experts should be more aware of – or can you bring a new slant to well worn subjects like expert independence, disclosure or any of the myriad challenges we all face in discharging our responsibilities to the courts? If you can please get in touch.

All our events provide the opportunity to learn from and be supported by other experts, something that many members find invaluable. They’re free to attend for members who can also bring a Guest.

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. If you’d like to join the Academy but are unsure if you have the appropriate skills please complete our Pre-Application Questionnaire and we’ll help you identify the appropriate membership level for you.

When highly qualified experts can sometimes get things very wrong you might be forgiven for thinking that the answer is yet more study and training. An in the well known case of  a carbon trading expert in 2019 who “couldn’t remember” if he had passed any A-levels and hadn’t read any books on the subject you would probably be right.

But academic qualifications by themselves are not everything, the important issue is whether an expert has relevant qualification and experience. In Malhotra Leisure Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd [2025] EWHC, a case about extensive water damage caused to a hotel, the judge was presented with evidence from two experts with widely differing expertise essentially a plumber and an engineer.

While the plumber had extensive practical experience he did not have much in the way of academic qualifications and in contrast the engineer was qualified in mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics but had a career in investigations rather than building installations.

Unsurprisingly both parties argued that the other’s expert was not suitably qualified or experienced. However as the judge commented he was not persuaded that he “should treat either expert as not being qualified to provide expert opinion to this court on the issues, which they were asked to address. As is often the case, both experts were doing their best to assist the court and doing so with a background of considerable experience, albeit from different perspectives. “  Quite the reverse, he found that helpful and objective evidence from two experts with different backgrounds was actively useful in understanding the issues in the case from different perspectives.

That’s why the Academy’s accreditation process validates members academic qualifications but also asks them to explain their professional experience and provide references an evidence to support it. Our assessors then check that both qualifications and experience are relevant and appropriate for the expert work they intend to do.

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.