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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll