What’s an expert to do?\u00a0 Should he tell or no?\u00a0 Should he make a point of telling the\u00a0advocate where the technical issues are going if this might not be a good place for his case compared to where it’s at now?\u00a0 Should he say if the initial hypothesis as to cause needs modifying or rejecting completely.\u00a0 Would\u00a0the expert\u00a0be perceived as biased if he did this?<\/p>\n
The expert serves the judicial system but he is retained by the advocate.\u00a0 The system wants justice for all parties.\u00a0 The advocate wants a win for his party.\u00a0 These conflicting interests can cause problems for the expert.<\/p>\n
I see this problem occasionally.\u00a0 I thought of\u00a0it when I posted\u00a0last week’s blog and commented there about where the technical issues might be going. (Ref. 1)<\/p>\n
Would an expert be seen as biased if he saw\u00a0that the technical issues were changing\u00a0and wanted to alert\u00a0the advocate\u00a0to their increasing lack of compatibility with his argument?\u00a0 And if the expert\u00a0keeps investigating, it’ll only increase the cost of the investigation to no avail to the advocate but\u00a0still to the judicial system.<\/p>\n
Frequent reporting in the spirit of updating an initial hypothesis is the answer, and relying on a technically, reasonably informed\u00a0advocate to ask questions.\u00a0 Even encouraging him\/her to get like that.\u00a0 I understand the system requires the advocate to be informed of the technical issues and be able to explain these to the system, so the structure’s in place to\u00a0keep this problem in check.<\/p>\n
Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n What’s an expert to do?\u00a0 Should he tell or no?\u00a0 Should he make a point of telling the\u00a0advocate where the technical issues are going if this might not be a good place for his case compared to where it’s at … Continue reading \n