header-logo header-logo

24 July 2013 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7570 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

In our estimation

Mark Solon reviews the new costs regime for expert witnesses

Builders do it. Car mechanics do it. And now expert witnesses have to provide costs estimates, under the revised Civil Procedure Rules which came into effect in April following Lord Justice Jackson’s report into civil litigation costs.~

Experts comfortable with the old regime may be perplexed by the demands of estimating how much to budget for assessment, research, report-writing, travel, meetings, questions and court appearances. Meanwhile the court enjoys new powers to reduce fees deemed to be disproportionate. Is it worth being an expert witness?

Business time

Some committed experts are upbeat: they can run their operations more like a business—offering fixed and capped fees, for example—and cherry-pick the most profitable work. If they can help solicitors give a costs estimate and identify the key issues, they won’t be pricing themselves out of the market—they are more likely to be employed. Those appointed as a single joint expert, working on behalf of both sides, will be able to earn higher rates

Experts baulking

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