header-logo header-logo

Unclear & present danger

17 April 2015 / Michael Young
Issue: 7648 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail
nlj_april_17_solon

Michael Young asks, are we divided by a common language?

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone” (Confucius).

Lawyers and expert witnesses inhabit entirely different intellectual worlds. Lawyers have been trained to extract information from documents, to ask closed questions, and above all, to win their argument no matter which side they are on. An excellent lawyer will be able to present a good argument from both sides. The expert is in some respects an interloper. The lawyer relies heavily on the expert helping them win their case. However, technical expertise does not automatically qualify someone to be an expert: very different skills and competencies are also required. One of those skills is the ability to “translate” the language of their profession into language that can be easily understood by the legal profession who are, after all, lay people in this context. It is often this failure to translate,

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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll