header-logo header-logo

20 November 2014
Issue: 7631 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Expert witnesses under pressure

Nearly one third of expert witnesses say they have been put under pressure to alter a report in a way that damages their impartiality, research has shown.

Experiences included being asked to remove “damaging” sections of their report or being asked to re-write it in the client’s favour. Some experts said that solicitors had refused to pay them for their “unhelpful” report.

The shocking results were captured in a survey of 186 expert witnesses at the Bond Solon Annual expert Witness Conference in London in November. Experts are bound by civil, commercial and family procedural rules and have a duty to justice above their duty to any paying client.

However, one expert recalls: “Solicitors were asking for quoted GP notes entries to be changed. I always refused.” Another expert told how a solicitor told them “you have a duty to the court to do as instructed by the solicitor”, while another was threatened with liability for wasted costs if they refused to make changes.

An overwhelming 45% of experts said they had encountered what they believed to be “hired guns” in the past year, backing up a recent BBC Panorama investigation that found experts in handwriting, CCTV analysis and animal behaviour prepared to help clients hide the truth.

About one third of experts supported mandatory accreditation in their area, as the government is proposing in the area of whiplash claims, and 44% would like to see better regulation of experts. Tim Dutton QC, a guest speaker at the conference, told delegates it would be “difficult” to set up a separate regulatory entity for experts. Bond Solon director, Mark Solon also told NLJ last week that attempting to regulate one-off experts would be problematic.

Hourly rates ranged from £32 to £500 per hour, with an average of £177.

Issue: 7631 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll