header-logo header-logo

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

Unclear & present danger

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll