No to expert regulation

No further regulation of expert witnesses is required, according to a leading barrister.

Speaking at the 20th Annual Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference, Tim Dutton QC said it would be “difficult” to set up a separate regulatory entity for experts, and problems would arise particularly where litigants-in-person are involved.

Dutton, a former Bar Council chair, shared his concerns about unscrupulous experts in a BBC Panorama investigation that found several experts apparently prepared to field evidence in support of a litigant despite knowing they had broken the law. However, he spoke against regulation at the conference.

Mark Solon, director of Bond Solon, says: “The problem with regulation is that under every stone of regulation there lurks an investigator, because as soon as a standard is imposed someone has to ensure that that standard is maintained.

“It is all very well for existing professional bodies to police their members and I would support directions that they maintain lists of their approved experts. Problems arise with one-off experts, those who are instructed on a specific issue in one case but may never be an expert again. There cannot be an accrediting body in such a circumstance.

“It is necessary for the instructing solicitor to exercise due diligence in assessing the suitability of the expert, for cross-examining counsel to test that ability and, ultimately, for the judge to decide the weight of that evidence. There is no political will or money to have an independent accrediting body.”

However, the Ministry of Justice has proposed both a new accreditation scheme and fixed fees for expert reports in whiplash cases—proposals which cancel the need for each other out, according to Chris Pamplin, editor of the UK Register of Expert Witnesses, writing in NLJ this week.