Using SOAP notes in forensic engineering investigation

Posted on by
Reply

I see making SOAP notes (Subjective Objective Assessment Plan) as a way for all of us, regardless of our field of practice, including law, to organize our notes on an investigation.  We would record our notes in the following format at each stage of an investigation.  I believe we would carry out more thorough, objective, and reliable investigations as a result, and communicate more effectively with others:

  • Gather, sort, and categorize subjective(S) and objective(O) information and data on an issue.
  • Next, analyse, assess(A), and interpret the evidence implicit in the data and relevant to the issue.
  • Then develop a plan(P) based on the assessment to address the issue.
  • Finally, document what you did in the manner you did it – the SOAP outline, for reliable communication to others.  Including yourself at a later stage in an investigation.

In the health care fields, where it first developed in the ’70s, this style of documentation is used to standardize entries made in clinical records.  This format is followed to facilitate improved communication among all those involved in caring for a patient or client and to display the data, assessment, problems, and plans in an organized way.

The process is followed in medicine – both human and veterinary, pharmacy, nursing, counselling, therapy, athletic training, etc.  In fact, it’s written into the standard of practice for pharmacists.  And I’m sure in other fields as well.  The SOAP process is sufficiently widely adopted that templates can now be purchased.

It can be applied in all fields of applied science, including forensic engineering.  I`m certain it can be applied in the practice of law.

I thought of this process – rather excitedly, I must admit, and it’s relevance to forensic engineering investigation when a vet friend for whom I was doing some engineering work mentioned it as we discussed his problem.  That triggered a memory of one of my daughters mentioning it years ago when she was first introduced to the process in vet school in the late `80s..

I quickly realized I do this in engineering investigation, make and document this kind of assessment, but it doesn’t carry a label like this – SOAP.  I guess we in engineering just get on with doing it and don’t bother with too many labels and acronyms.  Gather data, sort it as to subjective and objective, assess the data, formulate a hypothesis (a diagnosis in medicine), then plan an investigation to test the hypothesis (a treatment to – in a sense, test the diagnosis).

An important element is that SOAP notes are made during each stage of a person’s treatment.  The standardized process improves communication and reduces  misunderstanding between the different specialties involved at the different stages.

Also, as treatment progresses the data becomes more objective, more quantitative, and more in the nature of test results.  There is less focus on the Subjective part of a note.

Applied to forensic engineering SOAP notes might develop like this:

1. Gather subjective data together and write the Subjective Part (S)

This is information that counsel and the client report directly to the expert in a briefing.  It is largely narrative and qualitative in nature, and not necessarily factual in an engineering sense.  It should include the history of the problem or failure – set out in a comprehensive timeline, and details about the damage experienced by the property owner or accident victim.  The history is an important part of the subjective part of a SOAP note.

In sorting information for this part of the note you would carefully identify all data that is subjective in nature.  Separate out any that might happen to be objective and include in the next part.   

2. Gather objective data together and write the Objective Part (O)

This part of a SOAP note is more quantitative in nature,  It consists, in the early stages of a forensic investigation, of notes on data gleaned from documents provided by counsel.  Also the forensic engineer’s observations during a visual examination of the failure or accident site.

During later stages of an investigation this part would include notes on field and laboratory test results and what was found during follow-up investigations.

3. Carry out and record the Assessment (A)

All data would be analysed at this point and the likely cause – or revised hypothesis during a later stage of an investigation, is identified and recorded in this part of a note.  How the cause was arrived at would also be noted – the reasoning that led to an identification of the cause.

Other possible causes arising from the assessment could be listed too, from most likely to least likely.

The assessment may also identify additional tests and investigations that should be done.  These would also be recorded in the assessment part of a SOAP note.

4. Write a Plan (P)

In forensic engineering – from the beginning and during each stage, this part would record notes on the investigation(s) that would be carried out to confirm, modify, or refute the most likely hypothesis of the cause of a failure or accident.

In medicine, notes would be made on the treatment plan for the most likely diagnosis of the patient’s condition.

Regardless the field of practice, the plan might be revised several times from the beginning through the various stages of an investigation and notes made about a plan at each stage.  SOAP notes made of the subjective(S) and objective(O) data gathered at each stage, the assessment(A) carried out, and the revised plan(P) noted.

Sources

I Googled “SOAP notes” to learn about this style of documentation and then considered based on my experience how the process is inherent in forensic engineering investigation.

 

A picture’s worth a 1000 words, possibly many 1000s in forensic engineering with a new aerial photographic technique

Posted on by
Reply

New way of taking forensic photographs 

We know in forensic engineering that a good picture is worth a lot.  For that reason we take many photographs and videos during our investigations.  And we’re alert to new ways of taking pictures of a failure or accident site.

(See interesting pictures below, if you wish to jump ahead in this short item, but come back and read the posting).

We also study existing aerial photographs when the ground in the vicinity of a failure or accident might figure in the cause.  It’s called ‘terrain analysis’ in engineering and it’s very useful.  We look at the topographic maps made from these photographs as well.

But aerial and satellite photographs are taken from 1000s of feet in the air and detail is lacking for the smaller, more compact sites typical of most failures and accidents.  This is also pretty well the case when you hire a small plane or helicopter and take photographs from the air.  You can get pictures from a lower altitude this way but there are restrictions on how low a plane can fly over a built-up area.

I’ve attempted to overcome this by taking photographs from the bucket of a boom truck hired for the purpose.  For example, I did this during my investigation of the John Morris Rankin fatal car accident.  I’ve also taken photographs of sites from the upper floors and roofs of nearby buildings and from the buckets of backhoes and excavators raised – with me in it, for the purpose.  But these photographs are oblique rather than at times preferably vertical, and also quite low level.  Pictures from a little greater altitude would be nice.

Imagine my interest when I chanced to meet a chap last fall in a park who was flying and taking aerial photographs with a small helicopter about one and a half to two feet in size.  It was a model, multi-rotor helicopter, a ‘quadcopter’ operated and flown remotely from the ground.  A quadcopter has four rotors.  These aircraft also come with six or eight rotors.  The more rotors the greater the stability of the ‘copter.

The quadcopter was fitted with two cameras for taking oblique and vertical photographs, 100, 200, and, I understand, up to a 1000 feet above a site.  Robert Guertin, the operator, is a professional photographer perfecting this technique.  He’s in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

One type of camera is the GoPro that is readily available in camera shops in Atlantic Canada.  There are other cameras that give even higher quality photographs.

A few days later, the grandson of a friend – a retired forensic engineer, got in touch to tell me about his hobby of taking pictures – from the air, from a hexcopter, a six rotor helicopter.  Zack Keating works in film and television in Toronto.  He’s also a photographer and presently in Dartmouth.

Twice in a few days I’m introduced to a new technique for taking photographs during forensic investigations.

The Chronicle Herald also reported recently that the RCMP have bought five of the multi-rotor aircraft, “drones” as described in the press, for their surveillance work.  These ‘copters cost in excess of $30,000 a piece and, I understand, require two people to operate remotely.  Robert and Zack are flying aircraft costing closer to $2,000 to $3,000.

I’ve examined several photographs taken by these chaps and I’m quite impressed by the detail and resolution.  I presently believe the pictures from these less expensive aircraft will be quite useful for forensic engineering investigations.  I’m carrying out field trials with these multi-rotor helicopters now and will report later on what I learn.

Figs 1 to 5 in the Appendix contain aerial photographs by Robert.  Figs 1 to 3 and Figs 4 and 5 are sequences of pictures progressing from distant shots to close-up views.  I envisage these types of pictures being quite useful in forensic engineering investigations.  Fig. 6 is a photograph by Zack of a hexcopter in flight.

Appendix

Oblique aerial view of park in Halifax

Fig. 1: Oblique aerial view of a duck pond in a park in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Vertical aerial view of island in duck pond park Halifax

Fig. 2: Vertical aerial view of an island in the duck pond.

 

Vertical aerial closeup of island shore line duck pond Halifax

Fig. 3: Vertical aerial close-up of a short portion of  the shore line of the island in Fig. 2.  This part of the shore line is about 2/3 up from the ‘bottom’ end of the island on the left shore.  The boulders both on-shore and submerged are quite clear.

Oblique aerial view of residential area in Eastern Canada

Fig. 4: Oblique aerial view of residential area in Eastern Canada.

 

Vertical aerial view of residential property

Fig. 5: Near vertical aerial view of residential property in the residential area in Fig. 4.  Note the operator on the deck controlling the hexcopter.  Also the 2′ x 2′ square landing pad on the deck.

 

Hexcopter in low level flight
Fig 6: Hexcopter in low level flight

 

 

 

 

An expert’s “dirty hands and muddy boots”

Posted on by
Reply

Canadian and American engineers are “…known for going on site and getting their hands dirty and mud on their boots”.  And this is a good thing in forensic engineering, and engineers should go there as soon as possible and as often as need be.

I know this to be true. I don’t feel comfortable until I get out on site.

I heard this expressed by one of my professors at a university in the U.K. when I was overseas doing graduate work years ago. (Ref. 1)

It felt good hearing this at the time, and I’ve tried to live up to that view of us.  It’s fairly easy for me because the field is a place I like to go.

I’ve thought for a while to share this with you.  But I didn’t quite know how to explain what it meant.  Still not quite sure.  For certain, it means much more than the initial site visit and visual assessment in a forensic engineering investigation (Ref 2).  It’s a cultural thing.  It’s a feeling, a good feeling; we just want to get out on site and collect data, build things – with our hands, fix things, solve problems, do stuff.  If we get dirty, it’s okay, it washes off, and besides, we’re doing things.

It’s important that counsel establish that their expert got out on site.

Our interest in being on site fits in with guidelines in the forensic engineering literature.  These recommend, for example, that the investigator be present and witness field and laboratory tests.  This carries a lot of weight in the justice system, the investigator, the expert, doing and seeing things done.

You can’t go to a site after a building or civil engineering structure has been erected and examine reinforcing steel buried in concrete, structural steel hidden behind gyproc walls, and foundations buried in the ground.  There are regulations in some municipalities today that require the engineer to be there when it was being done and sign off on this.

Our interest also resonates with the fact that about 80% to 85% of what we learn is acquired visually.  Collecting data visually is the way we get most of our information.  You can’t beat picking up a concrete impression on site, walking and poking around, ‘kicking a few tires’.  It’s difficult to talk about something without seeing it.

We like working with people to get a job done, but when we examine a site, investigating and collecting data, we like to do this privately and in a relaxed manner without the distractions of the presence of another person.

Counsel would do well to establish if their expert did this: Got out on site a lot.  He should also cross-examine and establish if opposing counsel’s expert did this as well.

Credibility goes way up if an expert has gone into the field and got “his hands dirty and mud on his boots”.

References

  1. Professor John Billam, Department of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.
  2. “Technical” visual site assessments: Valueable, low cost forensic engineering method.  Posted September 4, 2012.  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/09/04/technical-visual-site-assessments-valuable-low-cost-forensic-engineering-method/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mistakes forensic engineers make

Posted on by
Reply

(Note: Please contact me with other examples of mistakes made by forensic engineers – in addition to the following, and I will publish them in an update)

Following is an update of a previous blog on mistakes forensic engineers make in the practice of forensic engineering in Atlantic Canada.  They have been taken in part from a publication by Babitsky and Mangraviti that resonated with me as relevant to Atlantic Canada (Ref. 1), partly from my experience in forensic engineering, and partly from suggestions by colleagues.

Mistakes numbers 4, 5, 8, 13, and 18 have been added to the list.

Counsel can assist the forensic engineer avoid many of these mistakes.  Asking the forensic engineer about any of these issues is one way of assisting.

Most of the mistakes occur in the investigative and report preparation stages of a forensic engineering investigation.  Mistakes occur in other stages of an investigation but these are not reported here.

Taking case

Mistake #1: Preparing different CVs for different clients.

This might happen inadvertently when a professional engineer updates his CV for each new case.

Lesson: More than one CV may imply or show that the engineer’s CV changed depending on the type of case being considered.

Solution: A professional engineer should have one CV

Mistake #2: Accepting rush cases that do not permit the engineer to follow the steps in the forensic engineering investigative process (Ref. 2).

Counsel sometimes call professional engineers late in the process of civil litigation with last-minute assignments.  These assignments require a rushed investigation, review, analysis, and forming of an opinion.

Lesson: Rushing an investigation can produce an opinion that is vulnerable to rebuttal and cross-examination.  Forensic engineers need to be able to recognize a rush assignment and decline when the time-frame is too tight to do their work properly.

Solution: Counsel should not offer and professional engineers should not accept rush or last-minute assignments.

Mistake #3: Accepting low-budget cases.  Forensic engineers sometimes accept low-budget cases.

Lesson: In low-budget cases, it is unlikely that forensic engineers will be able to do adequate investigation and analysis due to budgetary constraints.  There is never an adequate excuse – including a low budget – for doing substandard or incomplete forensic investigative work.

Solution: Forensic engineers should not accept low-budget cases.  The forensic engineer should determine at the outset if an adequate budget has been set to perform investigative work properly.

Mistake #4: Taking a case for which the forensic engineer is not qualified.

Experts sometimes mistakenly step outside their sandbox and take a case for which they are not qualified.

Lesson: The almost certain inadequacy of your forensic investigation will be found out.  This will reflect on your reputation and credibility.

Solution: Do not accept work for which you are not qualified.

Mistake #5: Recommending an expert to counsel when we do not know well that expert’s qualifications.

We sometimes refer counsel to other experts whose qualifications for the investigation we do not know well.  And subsequently, that expert does not carry out an adequate investigation.

Lesson: The inadequate work of the recommended expert reflects poorly on the person who recommended him/her.

Solution: Do not recommend anyone whose work you do not know well.

Investigation

Mistake #6: Failing to document.  Forensic engineers fail to adequately document their investigation and findings.

Lesson:   The judge, jury, opposing counsel, and other forensic engineers may take a long, hard look at the manner in which a forensic engineer documents his investigative work.  If the engineer is careless, less weight will be given to his findings and opinion.  Forensic engineers run the risk of having their investigative tasks, reports, opinions, and testimony discounted or even excluded.

Solution: Forensic engineers should meticulously document their investigative work.

Mistake #7: Failing to establish and follow a standard investigative protocol.

Failing to follow one’s own standard investigative protocol due to time or financial constraints can be a serious mistake.

Lesson: When forensic engineers have a protocol or procedure and do not follow it they should expect that their findings, conclusions, and opinions will be questioned, and in some cases undermined.

Solution: Brief retaining counsel on the difficulty this presents and consider declining the assignment when the deadline or budget is insufficient.

Mistake #8: Getting seduced by the tyranny of the obvious (Ref. 3) 

The professional engineer does not carry out a thorough forensic engineering investigation because the cause is ‘obvious’.

Lesson: You learn from an expert for another party to the action that the obvious cause was incorrect.

Solution: Carry out a thorough forensic engineering investigation even if it’s only to confirm the obvious.

Mistake #9: Failing to review the the complete set of records.  

Forensic engineers are sometimes provided an incomplete set of records or portions of records to review, and agree to review this less than full record.

Lesson: In agreeing to review less than the full record, the forensic engineer may put themselves in a very difficult position.  They should expect to be asked why they did not review the entire record, if missing portions may be significant, particularly if they requested to see the entire set of records.  They may be asked to review the omitted records while testifying.

Solution: Forensic engineers should not accept portions of records or an incomplete set of records to review without the full understanding of retaining counsel of the potential consequences of this.

Mistake #10: Not asking for all the records.

Forensic engineers sometimes do not ask for all of the records in the case they are working on.

Lesson: The forensic engineer shows a lack of due diligence when he does not ask for a complete set of records from retaining counsel.  In addition, the engineer opens himself up to unnecessary questioning by opposing counsel.

Solution:  The forensic engineer should ask for all documents.

Mistake #11: Not corroborating facts provided by counsel.

Forensic engineers take facts provided by retaining counsel without checking them.

Lesson: Forensic engineers who do not corroborate the facts are vulnerable to cross-examination by opposing council.

Solution: Where feasible, corroborate the facts in the case.  This is best done by a comparison to the records, documents, statements, discovery testimony, and investigative findings.

Writing reports

Mistake #12: Writing reports that are based on incomplete investigations and insufficient data.

Forensic engineers sometimes write reports, for example, a preliminary report, that they do not anticipate will become part of the litigation process.  They also are sometimes asked to take on forensic assignments only to learn later that insufficient data are available to render a report to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty.

Lesson: The failure to do a complete and adequate investigation and testing will always look worse when the engineer is forced to testify and support his (preliminary) report.

Solution: Forensic engineers writing reports should always anticipate that they may have to defend their reports at discovery or trial.  The report should be of a quality that is easily defended (Ref. 4).

Do not write a report and express an opinion until you have sufficient facts to do so.  It might be necessary after studying the available evidence to advise counsel that he is unable to render an opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty.

Mistake #13: Writing vague, equivocal and uncertain reports.

Experts sometimes write vague, uncertain reports that are open to different interpretations because of insufficient data or the expert’s writing style.

Lesson: Your report and opinion may be rejected by the court.  This is happening often enough.

Solution: Carry out a thorough forensic investigation.  Use precise, certain language and state your findings and opinion clearly and directly in simple, declarative sentences. (Ref. 4)

Mistake #14: Writing a report without being asked by counsel.  

Professional engineers may do this because it is a natural step in an investigation.  However, counsel is an advocate on behalf of the client.  If the investigative findings are not favourable counsel may not want a report published.

A report is also an expense, even if the findings are favourable, and may be seen as a means of reducing costs.

Lesson: Forensic engineering reports are generally discoverable.  They are also expensive and must be requested.

Solution: Do not write a report until retaining counsel requests one.  But, encourage a report because it is usually the best way to explain fully and properly to counsel and to the judge and/or jury the technical issues, the forensic investigation and the findings.  Judges are wordsmiths and usually prefer a well written report.

Mistake #15: Not writing a report according to civil procedure rules like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia.  Rule 55 is very explicit on what to cover in a report.  It outlines what the justice system needs to resolve the technical issues in a dispute.

Lesson: Not writing a report according to the rules may undermine the report and reduce it’s weight.

Solution: Write your report according to the rules.

Mistake #16: Sharing draft reports with counsel.

Forensic engineers share their draft reports with retaining counsel and then re-work the reports.

Lesson: Sharing draft reports invites close questioning from opposing counsel about the influence of retaining counsel on the report writing process.

Solution: Do not share draft reports with retaining counsel.

Mistake #17: Not ensuring counsel understands the investigation and the findings thoroughly – the investigative tasks, the purpose of each task, the data from each task, the analysis, the findings, and the cause of the problem.

Lesson: Counsel may not present the technical evidence correctly and as a result argue ineffectively on behalf of his client.  This could reflect unfairly on the forensic engineer.

Solution: Recommend a meeting with counsel and report on the investigation in detail.  Make certain counsel clearly understands.

Mistake #18: Appearing to advocate on behalf of the client. 

This may inadvertently occur when the technical findings of the investigation support the client’s case.  The forensic engineer may appear to be advocating in making the technical truth known to the justice system.

Lesson: Your credibility as an expert is compromised if you are perceived to be advocating for the client.  Credibility is like a slippery rock: Hard to get back (on)once you lose it (slip off).

Solution: State the technical data quietly and clearly without any hint of enthusiasm for the truth you have found.  Do not use emphasis when expressing findings or conclusions.

References

  1. Babitsky, Steven and Mangraviti, Jr., James L., The Greatest Mistakes Expert Witnesses Make and How to Avoid Them, SEAK, Inc., Falmouth, MA, 2008 http://store.seak.com/the-biggest-mistakes-expert-witnesses-make-and-how-to-avoid-them/
  2. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process, posted October 26, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/10/26/steps-in-the-forensic-engineering-investigative-process/
  3. Getting seduced by the tyranny of the obvious, posted December 9, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/12/09/getting-seduced-by-the-tyranny-of-the-obvious/
  4. Babitsky, Steven and Mangraviti, Jr., James L., Writing and Defending Your Expert Report, SEAK, Inc., Falmouth, MA, 2002
  5. Stockwood, Q.C., Civil Litigation, 5th, Thomson Carswell Ltd, 2004

 

“Getting seduced by the tyranny of the obvious”

Posted on by
Reply

I got thinking about this phrase after a colleague replied: “Don’t get seduced by the tyranny of the obvious”.  This reply to my request for examples of mistakes experts make in civil litigation cases (Ref. 1),

(My colleague requested no citation but he is an experienced professional engineer, quite well known in eastern Canada, and been around the block a few times.  He looked at a draft of this posting)

We were chatting about the mistakes experts make.  He was referring to an engineer not carrying out a thorough forensic engineering investigation because “the cause is obvious”.  And, as a result, sometimes making a mistake, and learning that the ‘obvious’ cause is wrong.

Counsel needs to know about this fairly human susceptibility of experts.  They can help ensure an expert doesn’t make this mistake by clearly stipulating a thorough investigation.  Regardless as to where the initial investigation seems to be leading.

There’s no question that forensic engineers sometimes make this mistake – get seduced by the tyranny of the obvious.

Why?  Some reasons:

  • We honestly think we’ve nailed the cause and stop investigating.
  • We are susceptible to the good feeling you get when you quickly determine the cause of a failure in the built environment or the cause of an accident.  We like getting at the truth and the good feeling at finding it.
  • We got egos, and sometimes think we’re more insightful than is actually the case, and, besides, a quick assessment and fix of a problem looks good on us.
  • We made the mistake of taking a case with an inadequate budget or too tight a deadline.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines tyranny as, ‘a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force, e.g., living under the tyranny of the clock’.  And for obvious, the dictionary says, ‘easily discovered, seen, or understood’.  Power over something is implicit in tyranny.

You decide not to carry out a thorough investigation after doing a little investigation because you believe you have found the cause of the failure – it’s obvious.  Except you learn later – perhaps from an expert retained by another party, that you’ve made a mistake, that there was another cause.  Or you had difficulty explaining in court why it was obvious.  Or difficulty explaining why you didn’t carry out a thorough investigation to be sure of the obvious.  You forget that it’s easier to explain doing too much than too little.

You found something, latched onto it, and didn’t look further.  The obvious had you in its power.

Forensic engineers, take care that the seemingly obvious answer to the cause of a failure or an accident doesn’t blind you to your commitment to the justice system to do a thorough investigation.  And Counsel, take care that your expert has an adequate budget and sufficient time to carry out a thorough investigation (Ref. 2), and understands that you want him to check the obvious with such an investigation.

References

  1. Mistakes forensic engineers make.  Posted June 20, 2013. http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/06/20/mistakes-forensic-engineers-make/
  2. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process.  Posted July 15, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/07/15/steps-in-the-forensic-engineering-investigative-process-with-an-appendix-on-costs/

Peer review in forensic engineering and civil litigation

Posted on by
Reply

Peer review is needed

We need peer review in forensic engineering to further ensure that the most thorough investigation is carried out and the most thorough, reliable, and objective technical evidence, opinions, and explanations are provided the justice system.  The court and counsel would learn from the knowledge and experience of more than one expert who would in a sense contribute to a single opinion on the technical issues (Ref. 1).

It’s needed.  I’ve read four poorly written ‘expert’ reports in the last while based on inadequate investigation and reasoning – really, very little investigation in most cases, and no reasoning in all cases.

It’s easy to include a simple form of peer review in forensic engineering

It would be easy to include a simple form of the peer review process in the investigation of a failure or accident in the built environment.  As easy as getting an independent expert to simply read the report of the investigating expert.

From that simple start, gradually move to a more comprehensive process over time.  I’m not quite sure at this stage of my thinking how a comprehensive peer review process would work in forensic engineering, but it would evolve because of the need for it.

Peer review will come in time because of civil procedure rules

The adoption of the peer review process will be driven in part by the increased emphasis on preparation of a report for the justice system – and less emphasis on discovery – arising from civil procedure rules such as Rule 55 in Nova Scotia.

The rule spells out the requirements of the expert.  They are exacting with respect to the expert being thorough, reliable, and objective, and reporting his evidence and reasoning, and also stating what other conclusions might have been drawn from his evidence.

The peer review process would seem to be essential to further ensure that such a requirement is met and the justice system and counsel are properly served.  Professional engineering associations essentially set these same requirements for those practicing in the forensic geotechnical, foundation, and structural engineering fields (Ref. 2 to 5).

The peer review process in science – the source for peer review in engineering

In science, peer review is the process by which an author or researcher’s scholarly work is checked by a group of experts in the same field – his peers, people of similar qualifications, experience, and competence, to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted (Ref. 6).  It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field (Ref. 7).

Put another way, peer review is specifically geared to catch any potential biases of the primary examiner (the forensic engineer), to promote the examiner’s heightened diligence (promote thorough forensic investigation) to pursue each important clue (follow the evidence) and to recognize the clinical significance as it surfaces (objectively accept the findings) (Ref. 1). (my parenthetic additions)

In science, publishers and editors of journals have identified independent experts in different fields who are assigned to review submitted papers on the author’s research.  The independent experts and the author may be known to one another or they may not.  Or only the one may know of the other.

Peer review has been practised a very long time in science and is essential to obtaining good science.  Forensic engineering must receive the same rigid peer review before going to the judge, jury, and counsel to further ensure they get good forensic engineering..

Peer review in forensic engineering

In forensic engineering, at least during initial implementation of the peer review process, the independent expert, or experts, would be a consulting professional engineer – a peer, retained to review the investigation and report by another engineer.  Both engineers would be retained by the same party involved in the action but ideally from separate firms.

The independent expert’s job would be to check that the forensic investigation was carried out according to the standard of care existing at the time.  Also, as stated above in the introduction to this item, to check and further ensure that “the most thorough investigation is carried out and the most thorough, reliable, and objective technical evidence, opinions, and explanations are provided the justice system” in a well written report, a report that would also be reviewed by the independent expert.

This checking of an engineering expert’s work by his or her peer would be easy to implement and would constitute a simple form of peer review.  It’s recommended now in geotechnical, foundation, and structural engineering (Ref. 2 to 5).

The final report by the investigating engineering expert would be his report alone because he would have corrected any agreed deficiencies noted by his peer.

References

  1. The Forensic Panel, Google
  2. Lewis, Gary L. ed., Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice, ASCE, the Association of Civil Engineers, Virginia, 2003
  3. ASCE, Guidelines for Failure Investigation, Virginia, 1989
  4. Ratay, Robert T., Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill, New York, 2000
  5. ASFE, Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers, A Guide to Forensic Engineering and Service as an Expert Witness, 1985
  6. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2013
  7. Wikipedia, Google

 

 

 

 

A bundle of blogs: A civil litigation resource list on how to use forensic engineering experts

Posted on by
Reply

Following is a list of blogs posted on this site in the past that are useful to civil litigation lawyers and their clients.  The items are classified under these headings:

  • Forensic engineering and civil litigation,
  • The role of professional engineers in civil litigation, and,
  • Managing the cost of civil litigation.

The blogs – neatly bundled in this one posting, will enable counsel and clients to quickly learn how engineering experts address the technical issues in a case during the civil litigation process.

You can click on the addresses below and instantly go to the item you want to read.  When you’re finished reading, click on the back arrow and return to this blog.

Forensic engineering and civil litigation

  1. Stockwood, Q.C., David, Civil Litigation: A Practical Handbook, 5th ed., 2004, Thomson Carlswell
  2. Steps in the civil litigation process.  Posted August 28, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/08/28/steps-in-the-civil-litigation-process/
  3. What is forensic engineering?  Posted November 20, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/11/20/what-is-forensic-engineering/
  4. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process.  Posted July 15, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/07/15/steps-in-the-forensic-engineering-investigative-process-with-an-appendix-on-costs/
  5. “Technical” visual site assessments: Valuable, low cost, forensic engineering method.  Posted September 4, 2012.  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/09/04/technical-visual-site-assessments-valuable-low-cost-forensic-engineering-method/
  6. Writing forensic engineering reports.  Posted November 6, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/11/06/writing-forensic-engineering-reports/
  7. New civil procedure rules will result in the writing of better expert reports.  Posted May 20, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/05/20/new-civil-procedure-rules-will-result-in-the-writing-of-better-expert-reports/
  8. What do you think?  How do you express the degree of certainty with which the expert holds the opinion?  Posted June 8, 2013  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/06/08/what-do-you-think-how-do-you-express-the-degree-of-certainty-with-which-the-expert-holds-the-opinion/

The role of professional engineers in civil litigation

  1. What comes first in civil litigation, the chicken or the egg? Posted October 21, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/10/21/what-comes-first-in-civil-litigation-the-chicken-or-the-egg/
  2. The role of a professional engineer in counsel’s decision to Take a Case.  Posted June 26, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/06/26/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-in-counsels-decision-to-take-a-case/
  3. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Notice of Claim.  Posted July 26, 2012  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/07/26/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-a-notice-of-claim/
  4. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Statement of Claim.  Posted September 11, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/09/11/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-a-statement-of-claim/
  5. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Statement of Defence.  Posted September 26, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/09/26/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-a-statement-of-defence/
  6. The role of the professional engineer assisting counsel prepare an Affidavit of Documents.  Posted October 4, 2012  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/10/04/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-an-affidavit-of-documents-6th-posting-in-a-series/
  7. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel during Discovery.  Posted October 16, 2012  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/10/16/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-during-discovery/
  8. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel during Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR).  Posted November 16, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/11/16/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-during-alternate-dispute-resolution-adr/
  9. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare for a Settlement Conference.  Posted November 29, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/11/29/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-for-a-settlement-conference/
  10. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare for a Trial Date Assignment Conference.  Posted December 12, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/12/12/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-for-a-trial-date-assignment-conference/
  11. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare for Trial.  Posted December 19, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2012/12/19/the-role-of-a-professional-engineer-assisting-counsel-prepare-for-trial/

Managing the cost of litigation

  1. How to manage the cost of civil litigation.  Posted October 4, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/10/04/how-to-manage-the-cost-of-civil-litigation/
  2. Difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation.  Posted July 23, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/07/23/difficulty-estimating-the-cost-of-forensic-engineering-investigation/
  3. Why the difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation?  Posted September 1, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/09/01/why-the-difficulty-estimating-the-cost-of-forensic-engineering-investigation/
  4. Should experts do pro bono work?  Posted November 13, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/11/13/should-experts-do-pro-bono-work/
  5. Do forensic engineers jeopardize the appearance of their objectivity? Posted June 28, 2013  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/06/28/do-forensic-engineers-jeopardize-the-appearance-of-their-objectivity/

 

 

 

Should experts do pro bono work?

Posted on by
Reply

Should experts do forensic engineering investigative work for free?  Would this jeopardize their objectivity or the justice system’s perception of it? (Ref. 1)

I have concluded that, in general, we should not and yes it would.

A possible exception would be a financially strapped client who otherwise might not have access to the justice system.

This question came up recently during lunch with a colleague who had referred an Atlantic Canada legal aid group to me.  One of their clients had a problem the cause of which my colleague recognized was more in my area of expertise to investigate than his.

I was contacted by a student lawyer with the legal aid group and called to a meeting.  I was told by an administrator almost before I could sit down, “We don’t have much money..!!  What’s your fee?”

I told them my hourly fee and also referred them to the Fees page on my website. www.ericjorden.com/fees  My schedule of fees is comparable to other senior professional engineers practicing forensic engineering in eastern Canada and, for that matter, elsewhere in Canada and the U.S.

They briefed me on the problem – an environmental failure, experienced by their client, the plaintiff.  Also that they had a court date about six weeks hence.

One of their biggest problems – aside from the tight court schedule, was that they did not know the precise location of the structure alleged to have caused the failure.  The location was critical to determining if the structure was the cause.

I outlined some of the tasks I would need to carry out in a forensic engineering investigation – including first locating the structure. (Ref. 2)

They said they would get back to me but I haven’t heard from them since.

Should I have said I would do the work pro bono instead of stating my fee?

In discussing this later with my colleague, he noted, “You’re doing the work for free for one party.  How is that different from doing the work for a fee for one party?”  He’s done work pro bono for the clients of this legal aid group feeling, “I should put back into the community”.

But we’re not doing the work for one party, we’re doing the work for the justice system.  The one party is paying an expert to gather technical evidence to be submitted to the court.  Also to explain the technical findings to the judge and jury, and to the counsel for the parties involved.  And to do this objectively, thoroughly, and reliably.  The justice system’s requirements for the expert to be objective are very clear.  There are no qualifications on this objectivity. (Ref. 3)

But the justice system represents the community’s interests.  Shouldn’t we from time to time put back into the community?

We must do this but not in this forum.  The justice system’s understanding of where we are expected to come from as experts affects their perception of our actions.  Lawyers are expected to be subjective and advocate on behalf of the client.  Experts are expected to be objective and advocate on behalf of the truth.

In our society, doing something for free for someone tends to imply a closeness that would not be acceptable for an expert in forensic work, even if the closeness is only slight.  There is the implication that we want to help someone when the clear implication should be that we want to help the court.  The requirement that we ‘stay at arm’s length’ is compromised.  If there’s any uncertainty at all about the objectivity of the relationship between the expert and the client there’s risk of being perceived as biased to the client’s interests.

We pay for goods and services in our society.  We can’t get away from that.  And you get what you pay for.

“Perception is extremely important.”, noted Alan E. Mitchell, a former lawyer in private practice and former Nova Scotia Minister of Justice.  Alan was of this opinion in a recent discussion I had with him about the Senate and Rob Ford scandals.  Perception applies across the board in human affairs.

We as experts must not do pro bono work – as a rule, even if we might want to as community minded citizens.

References

  1. Do forensic engineers jeopardize the appearance of their objectivity?  Posted June 28, 2013  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/06/28/do-forensic-engineers-jeopardize-the-appearance-of-their-objectivity/
  2. Steps in the forensic engineering process with an Appendix on costs.  Posted July 15, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/07/15/steps-in-the-forensic-engineering-investigative-process-with-an-appendix-on-costs/
  3. Rule 55 Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules

 

 

 

What comes first in civil litigation, the chicken or the egg?

Posted on by
Reply

What comes first in a case with technical issues?  Filing a claim for damages or conferring with an expert?  Identifying the parties responsible or conferring with an expert. Discovering the parties involved or conferring with an expert?

I’ve been retained as an expert before a claim has been filed and in other cases many years afterwards, and at all stages in between.  In one case, 11 years after a claim was initiated – a claim that was subsequently resolved four months after a simple forensic engineering investigation was carried out.  Why not years earlier and save a lot of money and aggravation?

I’ve been retained in a number of cases, either a few weeks before discovery, a few weeks before ADR, or a few weeks before trial.- long after the die has been cast with respect to case strategy.  And without the benefit of informed comment on the technical issues.  I was consulted in one case a few weeks before trial, and the claimant did not even know the precise location of the structure alleged to have caused the damage – on one side of a hill or the other in a case where location was important!

It’s easy for me to imagine that some claims have been filed by counsel without benefit of some initial forensic investigation and comment by a technical expert – and the wrong parties named in the action.

I’m sure similar comments could be made and examples given about early and late involvement of a technical expert in defending against a claim.

Is there any question about the answer to the question, “What comes first in civil litigation …?”  Or should at least come close to being first.

I’ve also, wisely, been consulted by the owner of a structure that failed somewhat  catastrophically, after the owner had retained counsel, and after Notice of Claim had been filed – but, fortuitously, before counsel developed case strategy.  A close call that one.

I’ve also been retained very early by property owners with a problem, saw that they should confer with a civil litigation lawyer, and been able to refer them to suitably qualified people.

“Expert witnesses play an important role in modern litigation.  The choice of an expert may have a crucial bearing on the outcome of a case.  An expert can make or break a case and should be chosen carefully and early.”  (Ref. 1)

(David Stockwood’s practical handbook on civil litigation went to five editions – the latest in 2004, suggesting he was onto something with his guidelines for civil litigation lawyers.  I’ll bet he was planning a sixth edition when he passed away prematurely)

Technical experts should be involved early if for no other reason so they don’t have to play ‘catch-up’ later, which can be expensive.  Also, so counsel is not caught out on a limb, which could be embarrassing.  Involved possibly as early as counsel’s initial assessment as to whether or not to take a case, for certain before a statement of claim or defence is filed.  (Ref. 2 to 7)

Assessing the merits of a claim should involve early input from an expert when there is the slightest chance that technical issues are involved along with the legal issues.  Experts know about technical issues.

For example, a forensic engineering investigation:

  • determines the cause of a problem or an engineering failure in the built environment, or the cause of an accident,
  • provides evidence that establishes the technical facts
  • identifies the technical issues arising from the cause of a failure or accident on which a claim for damages is based, or a defense mounted.

Knowing cause, and the strength of the technical evidence and the importance of the technical issues – all determined for the most part by the expert, counsel can reliably assess the merits of a case and whether or not to proceed.

Most important in an assessment of merit is knowing who is responsible for the damages and who to name in an action and this frequently derives from knowing the cause of the failure or accident.

And no assessment of the merit of a claim involving legal and technical issues would be complete – would in fact be lacking terribly, without an initial assessment of legal and forensic engineering investigative costs.  (Ref. 1, 3, and 8 to 10)

Who better qualified to assess technical costs than the technical expert?  And, wisely, to be given the opportunity to do this as early as possible in the action.

For certain, there are situations where a claim or defense might be filed before a technical expert is consulted – sometimes the technical issues may seem minor, but not years after the fact.

It seems prudent for counsel to err on the side of caution and retain an expert early, like the legal handbooks and forensic engineering guidelines recommend.  (Ref. 1, and 11 to 13)  It’s easier to defend (to the client) having been prudent than not.

References

  1. Stockwood, Q.C., David, Civil Litigation, A Practical Handbook, 5th ed. 2004, pg. 14, Thomson Carlswell
  2. Steps in the civil litigation process, posted, August 28, 2012
  3. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process with an Appendix on costs, posted July 15, 2013
  4. The role of a professional engineer in counsel’s decision to take a case, posted June 26, 2012
  5. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Notice of Claim, posted July 26, 2012
  6. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Statement of Claim, posted September 11, 2012
  7. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Statement of Defence, posted September 26, 2012
  8. How to manage the cost of civil litigation, posted October 4, 2013
  9. Difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation, posted July 23, 2013
  10. Why the difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation?, posted September 1, 2013
  11. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Guidelines for Failure Investigation, New York, 1989
  12. ASCE, Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice, New York, 2003
  13. ASCE, Guide to Investigation of Structural Failures, New York, 1986

 

 

 

 

 

How to manage the cost of civil litigation

Posted on by
Reply

Management should be easy

Managing the cost of civil litigation should be easy when it involves technical issues.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be inexpensive.  Nor that you will know at the start exactly what the final cost will be.

What it does mean is that there is a simple process that can be followed.  A process to keep you and the client informed at different stages of litigation of the costs-to-date and the estimated total costs.  And keep you and the client informed with an increasingly accurate assessment of final costs.  There is a process for managing the financial realities of civil litigation (Ref. 1).

Why must cost be managed?

The cost of civil litigation must be managed in some way because:

  1. Civil litigation can be expensive (Ref. 1)
  2. Accurately estimating the cost of civil litigation is difficult (Ref. 16, 17)
  3. Clients generally don’t understand the financial realities of litigation (Ref. 1)

If you can measure something you can manage it.  Put another way, originally, ‘What gets measured, gets done’ (Ref. 2).

If you are measuring something on a regular basis you can manage and control it.  If you take the measure of the costs of civil litigation – estimate, up-date, and evaluate the costs, periodically, for example, at the different stages of litigation, you can manage and control the costs.

Managing and controlling costs means ensuring you input the most up-to-date costs into your periodic re-assessment of the merits of continuing an action.

Categories of cost in civil litigation

Fortunately, what could be easier than noting three main categories of cost in civil litigation involving technical issues?:

  1. Legal costs
  2. Cost of the role of the expert at the different stages of an action, and,
  3. The cost of the forensic engineering investigation

Key stages in cost estimating

Stages in civil litigation

Then obtaining estimates of these costs and updates at the following key stages of civil litigation as recommended in practical handbooks of civil litigation (Ref. 1):

  1. Initial preparation and pleadings,
  2. Preparation and completion of discovery,
  3. Preparation and completion of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution)
  4. Long-range preparation for trial, and,
  5. Short-range preparation for trial.

I added Item #3 on ADR to the recommendations in legal handbooks because new technical data might arise in discovery that would merit an update of estimated costs.  Also, because the vast majority of cases do not proceed to trial (Ref. 1).

You as counsel would estimate your legal fees at these successive key stages and add them to the other two categories of fees.

You would work with the expert in estimating the second category of costs, the role of the expert at the different stages of civil litigation (Ref. 3 to 14).

The professional engineer would estimate the third category, the cost of the forensic engineering investigation.

Stages in forensic engineering investigation

Updated cost estimates can be given for the forensic engineering investigation at the following stages of an investigation:

(Ideally, much of the engineering investigative work would be complete by key stage #2 in the above, Preparation and Completion of Discovery.  In fact, in a perfect world, civil litigation wouldn’t be entertained at all in a case with technical issues until a forensic engineering investigation had been completed, the cause of an engineering failure or an accident determined, and the technical merits of the case assessed):

  1. Visual assessment of the site and preliminary planning of the investigation
  2. Field investigations – often after documenting damage to the structure, also after determining site conditions
  3. Research
  4. Follow-up investigations
  5. Data analysis

Counsel would take these updated investigative costs from the professional engineer, add them to the legal costs, and to the cost of the role of the expert in litigation, to obtain total, updated, civil litigation costs, and the client advised.

Then do this again at key stages of the engineering investigation and at key stages of the civil litigation process.  The merits of the case would be reviewed on each occasion and the client updated so that he or she could make a decision on whether or not to continue the action.

The estimating of forensic engineering investigative costs assumes a full scale investigation – same as counsel is encouraged in legal handbooks to assume a full scale trial when estimating costs (Ref. 1).

Reporting costs to the client

It’s important when counsel is reporting costs-to-date plus estimated future costs to express these costs as a percentage of the cost of the failed structure and/or the likely award.  Do this for estimated costs that err on the high side.  This percentage can be quite enlightening with regards to the wisdom of continuing the action.

Few clients realize how much it costs to become involved in litigation (Ref. 1).  Nor how difficult it is for counsel and the expert to estimate total costs (Ref. 16, 17).  Some cases and engineering investigations become very complicated.  A stepped approach to managing costs and frequent updates helps the client deal with the uncertainty.

The approach is not unlike the cost control procedures in the field of project management – constant re-evaluation and updating based on new data (Ref. 15).

It’s difficult to accurately estimate the cost of forensic engineering investigation because of the unknowns (Ref. 16, 17).  Counsel should help the client to understand, however, that the difficulty estimating costs decreases as technical data becomes available during key stages, and the accuracy of the cost estimate increases.

Counsel must ask for these updated cost estimates at key stages because it takes time to update the scope of a forensic engineering investigation and update a cost estimate, but, it’s worth it.

Summary

To summarize, as part of your on-going assessment of the merits of a claim or of a defense,

  1. Obtain the very approximate forensic engineering investigative costs from the engineer at the start of an action,
  2. Confer with the professional engineer and together determine the cost of the expert’s role at each stage in the civil litigation process,
  3. Add your legal costs to the engineering investigative costs and to the costs of the expert’s role in the civil litigation process to obtain a total cost,
  4. Brief your client at the start of an action on the estimated total costs and the legal and technical merits of the action, including comments on the difficulty estimating costs by you and the expert.
  5. Then do this again – estimating total costs – at key stages of the engineering investigation and at key stages of the civil litigation process, review the merits of the case again, and update the client at each stage, and, finally,
  6. Express the estimated total costs at each stage as a percentage of the expected award, which can be enlightening.

It sounds easy managing the cost of civil litigation, and it is easy – a well identified step by step process – and counsel and clients can benefit from that process.

Counsel does need to be alert though considering that many of you handle many files.  I’ve heard “…hundreds of files…” by one senior lawyer, “…lots…” by another, and “…dozens…” by a young lawyer.  So, be careful and pay attention to individual cases and manage the cost of civil litigation as easily as it can be done.

***

The cost of civil litigation and the scope of forensic engineering investigation

Before a professional engineer can actually estimate costs, the scope of a forensic investigation must be planned, based on an initial hypothesis of the cause of the failure or accident.  This planning takes time and involves identifying:

  1. The methods of investigation,
  2. The tasks associated with each method,
  3. The people, expertise, and skills needed to carry out the tasks
  4. The supplies and equipment needed by the people, and
  5. The time to carry out the tasks

Only after the scope of an investigation is developed, and updated at key stages, can the cost of a forensic engineering investigation be estimated.  This takes time, estimating, but if done properly the client knows approximately where he’s at cost-wise and where he might be going at any particular stage.

The actual scope and cost of a forensic investigation comes into better focus as each stage is reached and passed.

The estimating of forensic engineering investigative costs assumes a full scale investigation – same as counsel is encouraged in legal handbooks to assume a full scale trial when estimating costs.

And an assumed full scale forensic engineering investigation that responds to the justice system’s requirement for a thorough and reliable investigation that leads to an objective opinion as to cause.  (Ref. 4, 18 to 21).

 References

  1. Stockwood, Q.C., David, Civil Litigation, A Practical Handbook, 5th ed. 2004, pg. 14, Thomson Carlswell
  2. Personal communication, Osmond, NSLS, Jack, Owner, Affinity Contracting and Environmental Ltd., Halifax and Ball, P.Eng., Ken, Former manager, Imperial Oil Refinery Ltd. (“What gets measured, gets done”)
  3. Steps in the civil litigation process, published, August 28, 2012
  4. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process with an Appendix on costs, published July 15, 2013
  5. The role of a professional engineer in counsel’s decision to take a case, published June 26, 2012
  6. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Notice of Claim, published July 26, 2012
  7. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Statement of Claim, published September 11, 2012
  8. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare a Statement of Defence, published September 26, 2012
  9. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare an Affidavit of Documents, published October 4, 2012
  10. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel during Discovery, published October 16, 2012
  11. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel during Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), published November 16, 2012
  12. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare for a Settlement Conference, published November 29, 2012
  13. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare for a Trial Date Assignment Conference, published December 12, 2012
  14. The role of a professional engineer assisting counsel prepare for Trial, published, December 19, 2012
  15. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Most recent edition, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA
  16. Difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation, posted July 23, 2013
  17. Why the difficulty estimating the costs of forensic engineering investigation?, posted September 1, 2013
  18. Civil procedure Rule 55, Nova Scotia
  19. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Guidelines for Failure Investigation, New York, 1989
  20. ASCE, Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice, New York, 2003
  21. ASCE, Guide to Investigation of Structural Failures, New York, 1986

Bibliography

  1. Bent, James A. and Humphreys, Kenneth K., Editors, Effective Project Management Through Applied Cost and Schedule Control, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1996

Update

This item is an update of a recently published item on managing the cost of civil litigation.  The update basically involved expanding the section above, ‘Why must cost be managed?‘.  The section is expanded by adding and explaining an important managerial concept, and it’s application to civil litigation, that, ‘If you can measure something you can manage it’, or, put another way, ‘What gets measured, gets done’.