header-logo header-logo

06 November 2020
Categories: Legal News , Family , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Solving the family expert shortage

The shrinking pool of family experts could be addressed by providing clinical and social work professionals with online training courses, paying judges to provide training and amending legal aid guidance on payment provision

These are among 22 recommendations made in the final report of the Working Group on Medical Experts in the Family Courts, published this week.

Other suggestions include greater engagement of professional bodies, making court paperwork and processes more efficient and improving local and regional co-ordination.

The report suggests that barristers, solicitors and judges be approached to assist with witness training, perhaps in conjunction with accredited training organisations. ‘Judges should be permitted to assist with training in working time and barristers and solicitors should be paid,’ it states. ‘The aim of this should not only be to assist the experts to give their best evidence, but also to dispel some of the anxieties many have about cross examination and the attitudes of the courts.’

The report uncovered one positive from the COVID-19 pandemic―remote hearings made attendance at court hearings less disruptive of clinical practice.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, said it had become ‘increasingly difficult’ in recent years to find experts willing to give evidence in family cases.

‘The shortage has not only been of clinical experts but also allied health professionals and independent social workers,’ he said.

‘Expert evidence is often necessary in order to decide cases justly and the reduction in available experts therefore presents a serious problem.’

The report notes: ‘Providing reports to the family courts is hugely time consuming and requires meticulous scrutiny of medical records and radiological imaging.

‘Psychological assessments often require consideration of medical and social services records. With the complexities and demands of practicing in the modern NHS, it is perhaps not surprising that few individuals are willing to take on the challenges of being a medical expert.’

Sir Andrew set up a working group of legal and health professionals, under Mr Justice David Williams, in autumn 2018, to investigate what could be done to resolve the issue.

View the report at: bit.ly/354N3hb.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Taylor Rose—Jessica Draganescu & Emily Hewlett

Taylor Rose—Jessica Draganescu & Emily Hewlett

Firm strengthens growth strategy and group litigation capability with senior hires

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
back-to-top-scroll