header-logo header-logo

Expert witnesses under pressure

19 November 2015
Issue: 7677 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Experts forced to juggle poor instructions, unrealistic deadlines & late payment

Poor communications, pressure to take sides and late payment are the lot of many expert witnesses working today.

Nearly half of the 191 experts taking part in this year’s Bond Solon Annual Expert Witness Survey said they would refuse to work again with a particular solicitor or firm. Among a wide range of reasons were “pressure to be partisan”, “wish to unreasonably influence report”, “poor instructions” and solicitors refusing to pay because the report did not support their client’s case. One expert reported: “They want a ‘hired gun’ and expect the expert to ‘do as they are told’.”

The most common problem experienced by the experts, surveyed earlier this month at the Bond Solon conference, was late payment. Some experts used debt collection agencies to secure their fee.

They also complained about solicitors not keeping them up to date with progress on the case, failing to provide all the necessary documents, providing poor instructions and setting unrealistic deadlines. Some 39 of the 141 experts surveyed have been pressurised to change their report. The experts also encountered bad manners, last-minute changes and poor presentation.

Mark Solon, solicitor and director of Bond Solon, says: “The survey revealed yet again some of the main complaints that experts have about instructing solicitors.

“These issues shockingly have led some experts to refuse to work with certain firms. Even though Lord Woolf wrote about the end of the culture of using expert hired guns as ‘adversarial tools’ way back in 1999 when the new form of civil procedure rules first came into force, some solicitors have not got the message.”

The experts gave the thumbs-down to the new system of randomised selection of experts, which was introduced for whiplash cases in April. More than half the experts rejected the idea that randomised selection is a fairer way for experts to be hired, pointing out that it may not make the best use of expertise or allow for client choice.

However, nearly half the experts have more work than last year—despite the intentions of the courts to limit expert evidence to speed up proceedings and bring costs down.

Issue: 7677 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll