6 Red Flags That Can Undermine Your Expert Witness’s Credibility
A skilled witness is a rare treasure a lawyer will have in the high stakes litigation field.
It could be a case of intellectual property disputes or personal injury damages evaluation, but an expert witness can either spell the difference between a good and a bad legal decision.
Juries and judges do not simply review the opinions of professionals. They examine the question of whether they should believe what experts say when they get on the stand, testify under oath. Even the most oriented professionals may lose their trust in case of some red flags needle their ugly heads during the process.
These are six red flags, which make the credibility of an expert witness at risk, and the ways to avoid them.
1. A Resume That Looks Impressive but Lacks Relevance
An extensive resume with degree, publication and award list might appear convincing. However, when the experience of the expert does not have any relation to the main issues of the case, the opposing counsel will use this opportunity. Skills could be the money maker – but the skills required must be pertinent for one to stand in court.
To illustrate, a bridge design expert with decades of field experience could not be the right expert witness in a court on individual houses falling on the ground.
The lawyers should make sure that the expertise of the expert is relevant to the technical questions being affected.
In such a case therefore should one who is dealing with the owner of the source code of a given software application, an expert witness who knows source code inside and out is a safe choice.
2. Inconsistent or Evolving Opinions
Scientists who switch their views partway through discovery, or who can provide conclusions at variance with what they have earlier written, or testified, will not be credible.
Some of the things that will be compared by opposing lawyers will include:
- Deposition testimony
- Prior trial testimony
- Academic articles
- Public presentations
- LinkedIn or published commentary
Even those pointless inconsistencies can be seen as a problem as the opposing side of the case may question the fact whether an expert witness has anything to offer in terms of undermining testimony.
To mitigate these possibilities, lawyers can use background checking of the work of the expert by comparing their methodology to what was done previously to make sure that it is defensible and that it complies with previous stances.
3. “Professional Witness” Syndrome
There are numerous instances of such a phenomenon in medicine; the majority of doctors in their profession have experienced it at one point in their careers.
A professional will find it easy to lose trust when he or she seems to be using his/her position as the expert witness to create greater profits on the side. Such an expert may be viewed as an opportunist by the judges trying to make quick money without being viewed as an independent and unbiased professional.
Assuming one expert is a witness who has personally testified on numerous occasions – either on all occasions by the plaintiff or by all occasions by the defense side – that may be picked up in a bid to indicate a prejudiced opinion.
Such problems can be avoided in lawyers who hire experts who practice law on a regular basis outside of the courtroom. Openness concerning type of pay and work is very crucial.
4. Weak or Unreliable Methodology
The results of conclusions are not only checked by courts, but also the way the conclusion was made. The red flags that lawyers need to be conscience of during the search of good expert witnesses are as follows:
- Absence of peer reviewed support.
- Lack of use of industry standards.
- Selective use of data
- Unsupported assumptions
- It was by ipse dixit reasoning (because I say so).
When professionals fail or refuse to outline their analysis procedures, they become liable to the cross-examination.
One of the ways in which lawyers can locate good experts is by demanding a transparent methodology. By employing plain language, lawyers will be able to make sure that they can understand every assumption, source of data and calculation.
5. Poor Communication Skills
Even the best expert can lose a jury because he or she is not able to communicate properly. Those may entail rambling, jargon use, and condescension.
Credibility relies more on manner than it does referring to credentials. Jurors tend to be equivocal about honesty. A specialist who fails to render some complicated ideas into meaningful words and phrases is at risk of pushing away individuals that he or she needs to convince.
When attempting to find experts, lawyers should undergo good preparation. Lawyers can use simulated cross-examination to test and make sure that experts can simplify complicated concepts.
6. Overreaching Beyond the Scope of Expertise
Experts can easily betray their credibility by going beyond their fields of expertise, thus making it one of the quickest methods to expect individuals to distrust experts. To illustrate, a forensic accountant who provides legal findings as regards liability may be seen to be opportunistic or slipshod.
This would be prevented by ensuring that the area of testimony by the expert is well defined. It will rely on the expertise to comment what lies within the scope of the expert.
Expert influence does not happen in court, but rather before the trial, an expert is developed with great care.
The above-stated six red flags can potentially cause limitations to even the best case. It is as much about perception and precision in litigation. The moral here is quite plain and evident, invest as much effort in picking and training an expert as in the process of writing legal arguments. Once the credibility is solid, professionals become an asset. Once it cracks, it has the potential to destroy the whole case.
The post 6 Red Flags That Can Undermine Your Expert Witness’s Credibility appeared first on QuintDaily.
