Expert’s reports can be written better and there are\u00a0resources available to enable\u00a0them to\u00a0do this.\u00a0 This need will be driven in part by civil procedure rules such as Rule 55 in Nova Scotia, Canada.\u00a0 These rules require\u00a0an objective presentation of\u00a0opinion to the court and a statement of the certainty\u00a0with which these opinions are held.<\/p>\n
Rule 55 will promote better report writing and forensic engineering investigation<\/strong><\/p>\n When\u00a0I first prepared a report\u00a0two years ago according to the requirements of Rule 55 I was struck by\u00a0the potential for this rule to promote better expert report writing,\u00a0 And, by extension, better, more thorough\u00a0forensic engineering investigation.\u00a0 You can’t write a good report unless you’ve carried out a good investigation.\u00a0 The rule reduces reliance on discovery in the civil litigation process and increases reliance on experts’ reports, and, by inference,\u00a0sets a high standard for the reports.<\/p>\n Reason for poorly written\u00a0expert reports – but no excuses\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n I have been troubled by the poor composition, unsupported statements, and leaps of faith in drawing conclusions – some that would scare a tightrope walker, that I’ve seen in some experts’ reports.\u00a0 No surprise given that we engineers and scientists like to\u00a0measure things, crunch numbers and analyse data.\u00a0\u00a0We are not wordsmiths by nature.\u00a0 But this doesn’t relieve us of the\u00a0responsibility to communicate our findings in simple English and to do it\u00a0effectively.<\/p>\n Not to fault the techncal expert too much.\u00a0 We are not educated and trained to communicate with lay people.\u00a0 We then practice for several decades communicating for the most part with other technical types – no simple English skills needed; jargon only spoken here.\u00a0 Finally, we are retained in later years for our extensive technical knowledge and experience\u00a0and presented as experts to the courts –\u00a0only to find we can’t write and speak simple English to civil litigation lawyers, judges, and juries.<\/p>\n Nor\u00a0is the civil litigation lawyer – the wordsmith in the process, relieved of a responsibility to confirm that the expert they retain can present their findings in well written, laymen’s terms.\u00a0 That they can write so judges and juries can understand.\u00a0 The role of the expert in\u00a0the judicial system is to\u00a0interpret and explain\u00a0technical material.\u00a0 One role of the lawyer is ensuring that he or she understands the report before\u00a0it goes forward.\u00a0 The lawyer is like a gate keeper.<\/p>\n Being technical is neither an excuse nor the justification for poor writing.\u00a0 The inability to write well is a career-limiting short-coming (see Ref. 1) – and a potential embarrassment to lawyers, judges, and juries, not to mention the engineer and the scientist.<\/p>\n Source of experience leading to my views on the state of expert report writing<\/strong><\/p>\n My experience leading to these views has been with engineering and legal firms ranging in size from sole practicioners to 50 to 75 staff.\u00a0 Firms located in eastern and\u00a0western Canada, and overseas in Australia, the U.K., and the Caribbean.<\/p>\n However, my\u00a0colleague, Gary Bartlett,\u00a0noted that he\u00a0experienced a culture in much larger\u00a0organizations – 200 staff, that encouraged and required good writing skills, and they achieved this\u00a0(1).\u00a0 Gary was an electrical engineer with the Canadian air force – air crew, for about\u00a012 years then with the aerospace industry for at least another 25 years.\u00a0 He still writes reports for the industry.<\/p>\n So, while there is a problem out there, the character and extent of it varies.\u00a0 It behooves the lawyer in selecting an expert to learn a little something about where his expert is coming from.\u00a0 I\u00a0plan to\u00a0publish\u00a0an item in future on\u00a0how to find\u00a0an expert and what to look for.<\/p>\n Sources for expert report writers<\/strong><\/p>\n CDs and books<\/strong><\/p>\n I was prompted to write this item on receiving the latest edition of a newsletter from Expert Communications, Dallas, Texas, a few days ago.\u00a0 This\u00a0firm\u00a0provides expert witness training tools and other services\u00a0for experts.<\/p>\n The newsletter announced the availability of a CD on report writing entitled, Expert Report Writing: Effective and Defensible.\u00a0 The CD is an hour-long teleseminar of a discussion between Rosalie Hamiliton of Expert Communications and Steven Babitsky, president of SEAK, Inc.\u00a0 SEAK also provides services to experts.<\/p>\n Steven is formerly a trial attorney and a co-author of Writing and Defending Your Expert Report.\u00a0 This book is one of the best I’ve read and studied on the subject.\u00a0 Every expert should be given\u00a0a copy\u00a0by\u00a0their retaining counsel.<\/p>\n Rosalie told me last Thursday that If you have\u00a0Steven’s book you don’t need the CD, although they do complement one another to some extent.\u00a0 But, she says – and I agree, that if you don’t have time to read\u00a0a\u00a0book – and many of\u00a0us don’t these days – and actually like to get your education via oral and video presentations, then the CD will provide some insight into this important topic of report writing – and possibly contain a zinger from Steven Babitsky.<\/p>\n Critical thinking\u00a0course<\/strong><\/p>\n Talking about oral presentations, one of the most valuable experiences I’ve had in recent years, with respect to my practice in forensic engineerng investigation and the accompanying report writing, was to take a course in critical thinking.<\/p>\n This was an intensive,\u00a0year-long, two, 1.5 hour lectures\u00a0a week,\u00a0course given by Professor Chris MacDonald at Saint Mary’s\u00a0University\u00a0in Halifax (Chris is now\u00a0at Ryerson University in Toronto).\u00a0 There was considerable emphasis in the course on looking critically at the basis of statements made to\u00a0us and that we make; What’s the statement founded on?\u00a0 What are you personally\u00a0saying and basing your statement on?\u00a0 These are critical questions for an expert to keep in mind when writing a report.<\/p>\n (You\u00a0might be interested in Professor MacDonald’s blog on business ethics and behaviour at www.businessethicsblog.com<\/a>\u00a0 He’s had it up for\u00a0over six years – and it’s well written.\u00a0 It’s been rated one of the most influencial business blogs a number of times since he put it\u00a0up)<\/p>\n The importance of instruction in critical thinking\u00a0can be gathered from the fact that hundreds of first year students at Saint Mary’s and other universities are required or encouraged to take this course.\u00a0 The course was given by three different professors the year\u00a0I took it.\u00a0 My class\u00a0had about 200 students.<\/p>\n Experts, regardless of how experienced, well known, and long in the tooth they might be would benefit\u00a0from a course like this – and their expert reports would be better for it.<\/p>\n But,\u00a0like\u00a0reading books,\u00a0not everyone can take time out to take courses at a university.\u00a0 I’m beginning to think that sources like those at www.thegreatcourses.com<\/a>\u00a0can help solve that problem.<\/p>\n This firm\u00a0offers several\u00a0hundred courses on\u00a0DVD on a range of topics including critical thinking, reasoning, and writing.\u00a0 The presentations are good and reasonably priced.\u00a0 You receive a synopsis of\u00a0the course with the DVD if you still want to do some reading.\u00a0 A\u00a0transcript of the\u00a0lectures can also be purchased.\u00a0 Some of the courses are interactive.\u00a0 I have three of their courses on reasoning and\u00a0writing.<\/p>\n Arguing\u00a0and report writing<\/strong><\/p>\n Gaining some understanding of Toulmin logic would also benefit those of us writing expert reports.\u00a0 I\u00a0see it as a practical logic as opposed to a formal logic.\u00a0 Toulmin advocates – analogous with existing practice in law – a procedural rather than a formal notion of validity.\u00a0 He outlines a way that assertions and opinions can be rationally justified.<\/p>\n His text, The Uses of Argument, is a hard read because of the terminology and style\u00a0of writing\u00a0in vogue in the U.K. in the 1950s when he first published his ideas.\u00a0 But, fortunately, you can go on-line and view\u00a0graphical representations of his ideas which I thought were quite good.\u00a0 There are also courses and lectures on his methods in simple English.\u00a0 The illustrations will remind experts\u00a0in writing their reports of the importance of ensuring their statements are well founded.<\/p>\n There’s no shortage of sources on writing better\u00a0expert reports<\/strong><\/p>\n There’s no shortage of guidance and no excuse for not\u00a0writing better expert reports.\u00a0 This\u00a0will come about driven by the high standards required by civil procedure rules like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia.\u00a0 Rules like this will out the poor writers.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Expert’s reports can be written better and there are\u00a0resources available to enable\u00a0them to\u00a0do this.\u00a0 This need will be driven in part by civil procedure rules such as Rule 55 in Nova Scotia, Canada.\u00a0 These rules require\u00a0an objective presentation of\u00a0opinion to … Continue reading \n