header-logo header-logo

14 October 2016 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

A bit of a turn-off

nlj_7718_solon

The role of expert witness is less attractive as a result of recent litigation developments, says Mark Solon

Recent years have seen public policy in the area of litigation evolve in ways that make the work of an expert witness more stressful, more risky, more burdensome, less well remunerated and generally less attractive. The government’s drive, with the help of the senior judiciary, to reduce the cost of litigation, has brought down fees particularly in publicly-funded work to such an extent that many specialist and experienced experts can no longer afford to undertake the work, leaving serious question marks over the quality of the work done by some who remain in the market.

Costs budgeting has meant that experts are required to provide accurate estimates of costs at an early stage and submit their reports to stricter and tighter deadlines. This has to be strictly policed by the instructing solicitors, who will themselves be penalised by the courts if costs are inaccurate and deadlines not met. This can cause friction between experts and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
back-to-top-scroll