{"id":6975,"date":"2019-01-10T12:02:18","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T16:02:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/?p=6975"},"modified":"2019-01-10T12:02:18","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T16:02:18","slug":"how-does-an-expert-engage-with-a-party-to-a-dispute-or-a-forensic-investigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/2019\/01\/10\/how-does-an-expert-engage-with-a-party-to-a-dispute-or-a-forensic-investigation\/","title":{"rendered":"How does an expert engage with a party to a dispute or a forensic investigation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I was struck recently by the different ways experts engage with the parties to a dispute or those needing a forensic investigation.\u00a0 I counted eight (8) different ways in comments by experts I consulted.\u00a0 Some good and conforming to well regarded project management practices, others not so much.\u00a0 How an expert is engaged affects how well costs are managed.<\/p>\n

(See a list in the Appendix<\/strong> of the different parties that could be involved in a dispute or forensic investigation)<\/p>\n

Seeing how it’s done now drove home the need for principles governing the cost management of dispute resolution and forensic investigation involving experts.\u00a0 I’m identifying these principles and will post them later.<\/p>\n

Early last month I sent a draft of the principles to experts and practitioners in different fields and asked them to review it.\u00a0 These people included colleagues in engineering, traffic accident investigators, several civil litigation lawyers, a town planner and a published author.\u00a0\u00a0I got good comments and suggestions and I’m incorporating these where relevant.<\/p>\n

The reviewers’ comments indicated several ways experts engage with the parties to a dispute.\u00a0 I’ve listed these below.\u00a0 The methods vary from project management techniques, as characterized by frequent reporting of cost-to-date and estimated cost-to-complete, to methods that risk the expert being perceived as agreeing to a fixed price for his services. There’s not a lot of order to the following list and I’m sure it’s not exhaustive – it’s just an indication of how experts engage with clients in Atlantic Canada::<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Fee basis after the retaining party briefs the expert, the expert reads the documents and then estimates the cost of the forensic investigation.\u00a0 Frequent updates on current costs and estimated cost-to-complete.<\/li>\n
  2. Fee basis.\u00a0 No reporting.\u00a0 No cost estimate.<\/li>\n
  3. Engage for the budget set by the retaining party, after learning the budget and the party’s theory of the case.<\/li>\n
  4. Fee basis if the client has taken the case on a fee basis.\u00a0\u00a0Declines the commission if the client has taken the case on a contingency basis.<\/li>\n
  5. Fee basis and frequent oral reporting to the party on the findings at successive stages of the forensic investigation, and after being instructed by the party to carry out each stage of the investigation.<\/li>\n
  6. Fee basis after all investigation is complete and all damage repair and remediation is done and all costs accurately known.<\/li>\n
  7. Fee basis for preliminary investigation like reading documents and a visual examination of the failure or accident site sufficient to estimate costs for subsequent stages.\u00a0 Then do successive stages as directed by the retaining party.<\/li>\n
  8. Fee basis plus frequent reporting of current and estimated future costs.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This list begs the question:<\/p>\n