A funny thing happened to me on the way to the courtroom.
I do a fair amount of expert consulting and testimony work and I was retained by an attorney who represented a person injured on a "personal watercraft." It was run over by a conventional recreational boat.
My attorney provided me with a large amount of written material to review. Much of it was extracts from depositions of witnesses and other people involved with the accident.
I have had this happen a few times in the past - I was only given part of the depositions. It was explained to me that the remainder of the depositions didn't contain materials necessary for me to render my opinion. I thought the attorney was saving money - he didn't want to pay for me to read extraneous materials.
What I didn't know, and was later told to me by a colleague on the other side after the jury found against our side, was that the missing parts of the deposition contained "the other side" of the story. Information necessary for me to reach a balanced opinion had been purposely withheld from me. As a result, I don't know whether my opinion was valid or not (I haven't taken the time to get the missing pages).
This is personally and professionally embarrassing since the opposition may take me for a dunce. I pride myself on being right.
I learned a lesson. Never, never accept extracts from materials upon which to base your opinion. If the attorney won't provide all the materials necessary, don't work for him. You, the expert, are placing your professionalism on the line. You are the expert and the one who should decide what is and what isn't relevant.
Conversely, I have heard other experts say that their opinion could have been much stronger in support of their client if they had known all the facts before being deposed or before testifying. So it is a two edged sword. Providing and reviewing only part of the available information may cause the expert to give an incorrect opinion.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue