Sign Up for our Free Newsletter
menu
Solicitors Journal Homepage
  • Home
  • News
  • Digital Edition
  • Practice Notes
    • Area of Law
      • Agricultural
      • ADR & Mediation
      • Asylum & Immigration
      • Aviation
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Charities
      • Children
      • Clinical negligence
      • Commercial
      • Competition
      • Construction
      • Conveyancing
      • Costs
      • Crime
      • Data Protection
      • Discrimination
      • Education
      • Employment
      • Energy
      • EU
      • Expert witness
      • Family
      • Financial services & Tax
      • Health & Safety
      • Human rights
      • Inquest
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual property
      • Legal Aid
      • Litigation
      • Maritime
      • Media
      • Mergers & Acquisition
      • Pensions
      • Personal injury
      • Police & Prisons
      • Private client
      • Procedures
      • Professional negligence
      • Property
      • Public Law
      • Regulation
      • Residential
      • Road traffic
      • Vulnerable Clients
    • Management
      • Business Development and Marketing
      • Career development
      • Covid-19
      • Education & Training
      • Equality & diversity
      • Ethics and Compliance
      • Finance
      • Human Resources
      • Knowledge management
      • Leadership
      • Legal services
      • Marketing
      • Pro bono
      • Professional indemnity
      • Regulators
      • Risk & Compliance
      • Technical legal practice
      • Technology
      • Wellbeing
  • Opinion
  • Business
  • International
  • Interview
  • More
    • About
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletter
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
    • Media Pack
    • Site Map
  • Contact Us
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Follow us:
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
© 2023 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Jean-Yves Gilg

Jean-Yves Gilg

EditorSolicitors Journal

Preparation of an expert is expert preparation

Tue Sep 08 2015Feature
Preparation of an expert is expert preparation

In SJ 159/17, former dental expert witness Michael Young gave excellent advice on nurturing relationships between solicitors and expert witnesses through teamwork and communication, in his article ‘Getting the best from your expert’.

However, sometimes, despite everyone’s best intentions, communication breaks down, and this article examines in further detail some potential pitfalls that are best dealt with at the outset of your case. It is easy to assume an expert has considered every issue that concerns us as lawyers, but we have legal experience and expertise, which should enable us to predict the approach of the court and our opponents and so anticipate how matters can go wrong. Of course, the most experienced experts will be well versed in these matters too, but why assume our expert understands what we need from them only to find out too late they do not?

Conflicts of interest

Before instructing an expert, consider with them any potential conflict of interest. In the recent case of EXP v Barker [2015] EWHC 1289 (QB), the judge came close to ruling the expert’s evidence inadmissible when he failed to disclose before trial that he and the defendant doctor had worked together. Therefore, before instructing an expert, ask them outright if there is a potential conflict.

As for the expert, if in doubt, it is best to declare any relationship that could give rise to a conflict. Then there is at least the possibility of dealing with it, for example, by checking that your client and/or the defendant do not object to that expert’s involvement, before it damages the case.

It is also worth making clear at the outset that the expert must be prepared to give evidence at trial. This may seem obvious but I have had experts agree to prepare medico-legal reports but then express unwillingness to attend trial.

It is easy to assume that most cases will settle but obviously this is not true of all claims and, to avoid later misunderstandings, solicitor and expert should acknowledge this at the beginning.

Ensuring experts understand that the role includes giving expert evidence and being cross-examined, including making sure they know they will need to make themselves available for trial despite busy diaries, can avoid later confusions. This includes taking time to make sure both parties are clear about the experts’ terms (including cancellation fees) relating to attendance at trial.

Time limits

Given the court’s approach to time limits post-Mitchell, ask your expert for their realistic time frames and non-availability before the court timetable is set. It is crucial to make any deadlines clear to the expert at the beginning and agree the steps necessary to enable them to meet, for example, the deadline date by which the expert needs the papers.

Many experts are used to the movable timeframes of the old days, even if they found it frustrating to be told a piece of work was needed urgently, only to find the deadline was, in fact, extendable. Making clear to your expert that life is not as flexible as it was, and the consequences of failing to comply, should help everyone meet court deadlines. Do ask your expert to tell you as soon as possible if delay is unavoidable so you can make the necessary application for an extension well before any deadline expires.

Finally, go through the case and evidence thoroughly again before expert discussions. It is hard for solicitors to let go and leave our experts to discuss the case with their counter-parts without our involvement.

These discussions come late in proceedings when time, money, and clients’ hopes and expectation are already heavily invested. The consequences of a change of opinion by the expert can be devastating.

It is worth making clear to the expert how important these discussions are. This is not to say that, faced with a persuasive argument by their opponent, they have not considered before that an expert should ignore that point of view. Rather, with proper preparation by both solicitor and expert, a change of opinion should occur in the course of discussions with your own legal team rather than during expert discussion.

A thorough examination of all issues and your opponent’s evidence should take place in advance of the experts’ discussion so any potential problems can be identified.

If the expert’s view has or may change as a result of the other side’s evidence, the solicitor can be alerted to this and deal with it before discussions take place.

In summary, by identifying where problems may arise in advance you and your expert can hopefully avoid obvious pitfalls together. SJ

Nicola Wainwright is a partner at Leigh Day

@LeighDay_Law

www.leighday.co.uk

Tags:
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisement
Latest News

Government agrees to establish music industry working group

Wed May 31 2023

UK reaffirms commitment to ending plastic pollution by 2040

Wed May 31 2023

Law Society welcomes new free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand

Wed May 31 2023

Committee publishes report on strategy to reform social care for children

Tue May 30 2023

Government launches new fraud squad to combat fraud in public services

Tue May 30 2023

Four Bars issue joint statement on the cab rank rule

Tue May 30 2023

Parents and carers to be given new employment protections

Fri May 26 2023

Committee finds plans to level up the country risk failure due to funding concerns

Fri May 26 2023

Government consults on enforcement mechanisms for animal health and welfare offences

Fri May 26 2023
Featured
A closer look at the trademark dispute between retail giants Lidl and Tesco
FeatureThu May 18 2023
A closer look at the trademark dispute between retail giants Lidl and Tesco

Angela Jack dissects the recent ruling in Lidl Great Britain Ltd & others v Tesco Stores Limited & others [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch)

The UK maternity care crisis: £5bn in avoidable damages claims
FeatureThu May 18 2023
The UK maternity care crisis: £5bn in avoidable damages claims

Billions of pounds in NHS damages claims could have been avoided had recommendations from past reviews been followed by action, argues Kerstin Scheel

Understanding Chinese underground banking and the risks
FeatureThu May 18 2023
Understanding Chinese underground banking and the risks

Laurence Howland explores the mechanisms of Chinese underground banking and the red flags

The building blocks for a successful collaborative culture
FeatureThu May 18 2023
The building blocks for a successful collaborative culture

Chris Marston explores the ways in which law firms can establish a powerful collaborative culture

SJ Interview: James Fulforth
SJ InterviewThu May 18 2023
SJ Interview: James Fulforth

The Solicitors Journal spoke to James Fulforth, Kingsley Napley’s newly appointed Senior Partner, about his experiences in the law, his thoughts on the UK’s tech sector and what he hopes to achieve in his new role

Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate
ForewordTue Apr 25 2023
Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate

Sophie Cameron takes a look at the news in the April Foreword