Randomised selection not the way forward, say expert witnesses

Expert witnesses do not believe the randomised selection of experts is a fairer way to be instructed, according to the latest Bond Solon annual expert witness survey.

Over half of respondents (56 per cent) from a survey of 191 are against the idea of randomising selection, citing the need for experts to be selected and instructed based on their expertise and skills.

One respondent said: 'Each expert has different experience and specialisms within their expertise. Removing the choice of expert means that [the] most appropriate expert may not be selected.'

Another commented: 'If I wanted to instruct a solicitor over a personal matter I would choose one who I felt had the skills I needed and with whom I felt comfortable. Why wouldn't a solicitor choose an expert on the same basis?'

MedCo, a new system to facilitate the sourcing of medical reports in soft tissue injury claims, brought under the Ministry of Justice's Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents, has started randomised selection of experts in whiplash cases.

Mark Solon, solicitor and director of Bond Solon, said: 'In certain standard cases, it would seem a sensible idea for randomised selection, but often in more complex matters the expert must fit the issue in dispute.'

Mandatory accreditation

One expert witness suggested that in their particular field, 'the pool is too small and there are several highly partisan experts who would not be successfully accredited if such accreditation occurred' within an environment of randomised selection. The respondent added that accreditation should be a factor as well.

When asked whether mandatory accreditation for all experts would improve the standard of experts, 57 per cent (109) of respondents answered in the affirmative.

Mark Solon warned, however, of the flaws in the current system and of implementing new measures.

'Mandatory accreditation of experts ostensibly seems a good idea. The question is, who would pay?'

He continued: 'The current situation is caveat emptor, where the instructing solicitor must exercise due diligence in selecting the right experts for the issues in dispute.'

Increase in instructions

Another highlight from the report showed that over the last 12 months, 47 per cent (89) of experts surveyed said that the number of instructions received had risen. This is despite the Jackson reforms which intended to reduce the number of experts and their payments.

Finally, the report showed that the average hourly rate for report writing was 50 per cent higher for civil experts (£190) compared to criminal experts (£103).

'The rates for experts are consistent with rates allowed for solicitors in criminal cases. Crime doesn't pay compared to civil matters,' Solon said.

Matthew Rogers is an editorial assistant at Solicitors Journal matthew.rogers@solicitorsjournal.co.uk