3 ms·
> If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there? His continui
by HWR_14 4y ago
> If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there?
His continuing to be paid depends on him saying what the lawyers want. See also one of the main issues that people have with arbitration (that the companies supply repeat business to the arbiters they choose, so they wouldn't want to rule that hard against the company or the way accounting firms have an incentive to not lose their contracts by siding with the client on questionable choices.
- ghaff 4y agoIn fairness, one of the things that happens is that expert witnesses get chosen based in part on past record, writings, etc. When I wrote a report, I wasn't pressured to write anything I didn't believe. However, I had previously written a public research note that laid out my take on the case pretty unambiguously.
- HWR_14 4y agoI totally believe that. I don't necessarily think it's as direct as "cross lawyer X, never work for lawyer X". I think past expert testimony is a big part of that past record that lawyer Y will look at, and people who want to become professional expert witnesses know that.