header-logo header-logo

Expert witnesses under pressure

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll