10 ms·

The headline isn't accurate. The suit was about whether the retired engineer could offer testimony as an expert witness in a lawsuit without a professional engi

The headline isn't accurate. The suit was about whether the retired engineer could offer testimony as an expert witness in a lawsuit without a professional engineering license. Notably, the dude had worked as a chemical engineer for decades but never got a PE license because it wasn't required in his industry. So he was a legitimate expert. The North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors tried to block him from giving testimony because he had a license. The court ruled that his expert testimony was first-amendment protected speech and that the state couldn't block it on the basis of not having a PE license. The suit is about licensing requirements for expert testimony in a lawsuit. Not about talking about math in public. The opinion is here: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opinion.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi...

vkou 3y ago
> The headline isn't accurate. The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board).
- resoluteteeth 3y ago
  > The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' > The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board). If he was was giving testimony that was protected by the first amendment and not attempting to work as an engineer, saying "It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.'" seems even more misleading than the headline since he wasn't actually attempting to do something analogous to unauthorized practice of law
- anon-3988 3y ago
  > The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' I don't quite understand why this is a problem? If a parrot is able to perfectly defend someone in the court of law then does it really matter if it never had a license to do so?
  - vkou 3y ago
    > I don't quite understand why this is a problem? There's a problem, for the same reason that you can't do surgery on people without being a doctor. We've tried letting parrots practice, and it has turned out poorly for everyone involved.
    - toasted-subs 3y ago
      Yeah but I wouldn't trust half the people who build software projects. Seems like the money gets sent to people who know how to talk, not on their abilities.
      - vkou 3y ago
        > Yeah but I wouldn't trust half the people who build software projects. Unlike engineering, or medicine, the overwhelming majority of software projects are not life-critical. I wouldn't build a bridge the way I build software. I don't work that way because I can't be trusted, I work that way because the stakes of failure are low.
        toasted-subs 3y ago
        In this market it would be financially unwise to build a software project the same way we build bridges.
  - razeh 3y ago
    Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.
perihelions 3y ago
They didn't try to "block" the testimony, per se; they tried to intimidate him by sending him threatening letters, warning he'd be criminally prosecuted and thrown in jail. Those threats were unconstitutional; he sought, and obtained, a federal injunction saying as much. There was no motion (AFAIK) to block his testimony through legal means.
- awinter-py 3y ago
  defense stopped a deposition where he was presenting (top of p4) + 'contacted' the NC board of examiners he ignored them, defense submitted formal complaint, board ended up seeking declaratory judgment that both his research and his testimony separately violate the Engineering and Land Surveying Act from the opinion https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opinion.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi... > The Board seeks a counter-declaration that Nutt's engineering work for the plaintiffs in the Autry litigation, including his engineering calculations, analysis, and resulting expert report, constituted the unauthorized practice of engineering. The Board also seeks the same declaration regarding "testifying at the discovery depositions in support of the work contained in the expert report prepared by Wayne Nutt."
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  Fair enough, they didn't block his testimony in the suit. In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial position was crazy. The dispute was escalated to federal court, and the court made a pretty reasonable judgment. Probably could have happened faster though. Edit: trimmed my comment so that it's less cranky. Merry Christmas!
  - awinter-py 3y ago
    fwiw the NC rules of evidence clearly states 'knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education' as qualifications for expert testimony https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 nothing about specific licensing also NC is a daubert state, which I think means you can attack the testimony's methodology via motion in limine, but doesn't add anything about the expert's qualification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard that said the engineering + survey act seems fairly clear that evaluating the safety of a public work constitutes 'practice'. if dude has 20+ yoe he could just take the exam under the 13(a3) long-established practice section https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_89c.html https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bycha...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
The whole expert testimony thing is a farce anyway. I am far and away an expert in artificial intelligence, and had one of these “expert witnesses” interview me about my expertise. They hardly knew the basics of software engineering in a modern way let alone modern machine learning pipelines. This is a person who had some patent exposure and generally does small business type of “IT.” The key differentiator in this case is because they couldn’t make it as a actual engineer they decided to parlay their skills into convincing even less technical people that they knew what they were talking about.
- asylteltine 3y ago
  It’s true. An expert witness is someone who can hold up in court not someone who is an expert in their field sadly.
- awinter-py 3y ago
  expert witness could barely even invert a binary tree
- tel 3y ago
  Agreed, though being an expert witness is its own skill. You need to be able to coordinate and/or write reports which will hold up under scrutiny in court and also be willing and able to stand for depositions and testimony. This also means that your credentials need to stand up to questioning so your credentials need to be transparent and hopefully unimpeachable. Unfortunately, it’s work that’s pretty distinct from engineering expertise despite in theory being supplemental atop engineering experience itself.
- mynameisnoone 3y ago
  An "expert witness" is merely an ostensible title meaning someone is available to be paid for their testimony. One irreducible problem is "Who decides who an 'expert' is?" A former customer of mine was a civil engineer, and also a California-credentialed Professional Engineer (PE), who did code consulting and gave expert testimony about the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code. His code interpretations earned about $100k in 2023 dollars ($50k in 1996) for 45 minutes of effort in 1996. I'd take a guess that an appearance was ~$10-80k depending on the amount of preparation, time, and travel. Needless to say, he had/has a 8-figure house in Saratoga, CA. Finding a niche that is essential to industry and monetizing it well is a fairly repeatable plan for success if one identifies and chooses the right profession. (PE in California means someone has attained accredited education, worked in a learning capacity at an appropriate type of firm for 4 years, and taken the very difficult PE exam. California licenses generic PEs and fields related and adjacent to construction and civil engineering. It's a shame there aren't specific software or hardware critical assurance PE subcategories.)
fortran77 3y ago
[flagged]
6stringmerc 3y ago
[flagged]
- tomrod 3y ago
  I read your comment a few times but don't understand what you are saying. I think I'm missing some context.
  - cas2325 3y ago
    [flagged]
Uptrenda 3y ago
[flagged]
- fbdrgvv 3y ago
  [dead]
toasted-subs 3y ago
PE licenses are only common place in structural and civil engineering. The reason for the license stemed from bridges. Seems like lawyers unsure of how decide if someone knows what they are doing or not.
phkahler 3y ago
>> The suit is about licensing requirements for expert testimony in a lawsuit. Not about talking about math in public. It pretty much says the state licensing requirements do not apply to expert testimony or preparation of reports supporting such testimony, which in this case they specifically say "doing some math" in the decision.
lolinder 3y ago
Thanks for this! A bit of additional context: the dispute stemmed from the fact that Nutt was asked to give testimony about stormwater management systems, not chemical engineering. Unlike chemical engineering, this subject is within the purview of the Board, so they believed that their ban on unlicensed expert witness testimony should apply. From what I can see, the court here ruled that the ban itself is unconstitutional, so not only do they need to leave Nutt alone, but they're not allowed to enforce the ban on expert engineering reports at all going forward.

vkou 3y ago

> The headline isn't accurate. The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board).

resoluteteeth 3y ago
> The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' > The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board). If he was was giving testimony that was protected by the first amendment and not attempting to work as an engineer, saying "It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.'" seems even more misleading than the headline since he wasn't actually attempting to do something analogous to unauthorized practice of law
anon-3988 3y ago
> The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' I don't quite understand why this is a problem? If a parrot is able to perfectly defend someone in the court of law then does it really matter if it never had a license to do so?
- vkou 3y ago
  > I don't quite understand why this is a problem? There's a problem, for the same reason that you can't do surgery on people without being a doctor. We've tried letting parrots practice, and it has turned out poorly for everyone involved.
  - toasted-subs 3y ago
    Yeah but I wouldn't trust half the people who build software projects. Seems like the money gets sent to people who know how to talk, not on their abilities.
    - vkou 3y ago
      > Yeah but I wouldn't trust half the people who build software projects. Unlike engineering, or medicine, the overwhelming majority of software projects are not life-critical. I wouldn't build a bridge the way I build software. I don't work that way because I can't be trusted, I work that way because the stakes of failure are low.
      - toasted-subs 3y ago
        In this market it would be financially unwise to build a software project the same way we build bridges.
- razeh 3y ago
  Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.

perihelions 3y ago

They didn't try to "block" the testimony, per se; they tried to intimidate him by sending him threatening letters, warning he'd be criminally prosecuted and thrown in jail. Those threats were unconstitutional; he sought, and obtained, a federal injunction saying as much. There was no motion (AFAIK) to block his testimony through legal means.

awinter-py 3y ago
defense stopped a deposition where he was presenting (top of p4) + 'contacted' the NC board of examiners he ignored them, defense submitted formal complaint, board ended up seeking declaratory judgment that both his research and his testimony separately violate the Engineering and Land Surveying Act from the opinion https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opinion.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi... > The Board seeks a counter-declaration that Nutt's engineering work for the plaintiffs in the Autry litigation, including his engineering calculations, analysis, and resulting expert report, constituted the unauthorized practice of engineering. The Board also seeks the same declaration regarding "testifying at the discovery depositions in support of the work contained in the expert report prepared by Wayne Nutt."
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
Fair enough, they didn't block his testimony in the suit. In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial position was crazy. The dispute was escalated to federal court, and the court made a pretty reasonable judgment. Probably could have happened faster though. Edit: trimmed my comment so that it's less cranky. Merry Christmas!
- awinter-py 3y ago
  fwiw the NC rules of evidence clearly states 'knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education' as qualifications for expert testimony https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 nothing about specific licensing also NC is a daubert state, which I think means you can attack the testimony's methodology via motion in limine, but doesn't add anything about the expert's qualification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard that said the engineering + survey act seems fairly clear that evaluating the safety of a public work constitutes 'practice'. if dude has 20+ yoe he could just take the exam under the 13(a3) long-established practice section https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_89c.html https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bycha...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

The whole expert testimony thing is a farce anyway. I am far and away an expert in artificial intelligence, and had one of these “expert witnesses” interview me about my expertise. They hardly knew the basics of software engineering in a modern way let alone modern machine learning pipelines. This is a person who had some patent exposure and generally does small business type of “IT.” The key differentiator in this case is because they couldn’t make it as a actual engineer they decided to parlay their skills into convincing even less technical people that they knew what they were talking about.

asylteltine 3y ago
It’s true. An expert witness is someone who can hold up in court not someone who is an expert in their field sadly.
awinter-py 3y ago
expert witness could barely even invert a binary tree
tel 3y ago
Agreed, though being an expert witness is its own skill. You need to be able to coordinate and/or write reports which will hold up under scrutiny in court and also be willing and able to stand for depositions and testimony. This also means that your credentials need to stand up to questioning so your credentials need to be transparent and hopefully unimpeachable. Unfortunately, it’s work that’s pretty distinct from engineering expertise despite in theory being supplemental atop engineering experience itself.
mynameisnoone 3y ago
An "expert witness" is merely an ostensible title meaning someone is available to be paid for their testimony. One irreducible problem is "Who decides who an 'expert' is?" A former customer of mine was a civil engineer, and also a California-credentialed Professional Engineer (PE), who did code consulting and gave expert testimony about the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code. His code interpretations earned about $100k in 2023 dollars ($50k in 1996) for 45 minutes of effort in 1996. I'd take a guess that an appearance was ~$10-80k depending on the amount of preparation, time, and travel. Needless to say, he had/has a 8-figure house in Saratoga, CA. Finding a niche that is essential to industry and monetizing it well is a fairly repeatable plan for success if one identifies and chooses the right profession. (PE in California means someone has attained accredited education, worked in a learning capacity at an appropriate type of firm for 4 years, and taken the very difficult PE exam. California licenses generic PEs and fields related and adjacent to construction and civil engineering. It's a shame there aren't specific software or hardware critical assurance PE subcategories.)

fortran77 3y ago

[flagged]

6stringmerc 3y ago

[flagged]

tomrod 3y ago
I read your comment a few times but don't understand what you are saying. I think I'm missing some context.
- cas2325 3y ago
  [flagged]

Uptrenda 3y ago

[flagged]

fbdrgvv 3y ago
[dead]

toasted-subs 3y ago

PE licenses are only common place in structural and civil engineering. The reason for the license stemed from bridges. Seems like lawyers unsure of how decide if someone knows what they are doing or not.

phkahler 3y ago

>> The suit is about licensing requirements for expert testimony in a lawsuit. Not about talking about math in public. It pretty much says the state licensing requirements do not apply to expert testimony or preparation of reports supporting such testimony, which in this case they specifically say "doing some math" in the decision.

lolinder 3y ago

Thanks for this! A bit of additional context: the dispute stemmed from the fact that Nutt was asked to give testimony about stormwater management systems, not chemical engineering. Unlike chemical engineering, this subject is within the purview of the Board, so they believed that their ban on unlicensed expert witness testimony should apply. From what I can see, the court here ruled that the ban itself is unconstitutional, so not only do they need to leave Nutt alone, but they're not allowed to enforce the ban on expert engineering reports at all going forward.