It is rare that lawyers can look to the British Dental Journal for advice on procedure and evidence. However there is a beautifully phrased letter in the British Dental Journal “reviewing a review”.
The writer was commenting on a review of the Clinical Negligence expert witness book review. The penultimate paragraph ended “should we ever become involved within a case representing...”. The letter writer, rightly took umbrage: They pointed to Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules and that an expert has an overriding duty to the court over any obligations to the party instructing them. The letter ends with the words
“A clinical negligence expert witness does not represent anybody.”
RELATED POSTS ON EXPERTS
- Expert reports: too long and not much use.
- More on experts: non-compliance with the rules taints the evidence badly
- The credibility of witnesses: joint meetings and overreaching experts: a case to point.
- Over eager experts just do not help: they hinder and harm the case of those who call them.
- Beware the expert evidence who “lectures” the court (and tells the judge who to believe).
- Expert evidence about the veracity of witnesses: well, its probably a waste of time.
- An expert must disclose details of professional relationship with a party otherwise the consequences can be dire.
- Irrelevant evidence, inferences and “forgery”: evidential issues in a High Court case.
- Principles of mitigation of loss & the credibility of expert witnesses.
- I didn’t mean it when I signed the joint report: what happens when experts change their minds?
- Expert evidence: the expert’s role: seeing the wood for the trees.
- Cross-examining expert witnesses: hints, tips and links.
- Experts going on a frolic: a family law case where the expert witness was “thoroughly unhelpful”.