header-logo header-logo

Taking flight

21 February 2019 / Mark Solon
Issue: 7829 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Why are expert witnesses stopping work? Mark Solon reports

One third of expert witnesses have considered stopping their work as an expert witness and two thirds of experts would stop doing legal aid work if expert witness fees were further reduced. These are two of the findings from the expert witnesses surveyed in The Times & Bond Solon 2018 Expert Witness survey.

They wrote: ‘More complex work, fewer hours, less pay, shorter deadlines, more pressure, more administration....Very demanding and not worth the stress of my life....Not getting paid and the increasing tension of reducing fees.... Solicitors sometimes do not accept/understand how much time a complex case can take.’

We must remember that expert witnesses have a day job and expert witness work is a secondary source of income. If the expert’s fees are too low, experts have to decide whether the case is worth their time and worth coping with the stress of respecting the tight deadlines set by the court. Also, since the judgment in Jones v Kaney [2011]

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

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