This a bit misaligned, blame shifting. I will be the first to admit there are unscrupulous, fame seeking, and overzealous expert witnesses out there. But, the

This a bit misaligned, blame shifting. I will be the first to admit there are unscrupulous, fame seeking, and overzealous expert witnesses out there. But, there are mechanisms in the courts to filter most of them out. I just think it is not done for money, time, career, or political reasons. I have seen this fail both in the adversarial (e.g., US) and elsewhere in inquisitorial (e.g., EU) court systems. In the adversarial courts, time and time again I watch lawyers refuse to hire expert witnesses for their own side because <insert hubris here>. Overall, there is also the opportunity for a voir dire of the expert witness. Failure to perform that is again lawyers' fault. So, who is to blame for all the mistakes? Yes, all of them. Final note regarding experts in court, specifically around professional expert witnesses - there is a racket in the industry where new-comers are kept out. The expert witness industry does some gatekeeping not only for expertise, but for retiring law enforcement in some jurisdictions. For example, in some US states a digital forensics expert required to be a licensed Private Investigator, unless former law enforcement. The PI licensing requirement are completely irrelevant for the expert witness role. Personal anecdotal experience - Lawyer thinks he is technologists, refuses to hire expert witness, begs expert to come middle of the case. Lawyer hires cheapest expert, opposing expert makes haggis out of cheapest expert. Funniest one was where in a small court the State's expert start going off on some cockamamie ideas about transference. The opposing expert was an instructor and had one of her classes in court to learn. The class burst out laughing, and the judge had to gavel. When she got on the stance, it was just glorious, torturous evisceration.