We at SEAK are very excited about our newest product for experts.
The SEAK Expert Witness Retention Contract has been favorably peer reviewed by plaintiff and defense counsel, judges, and expert witnesses.
Here’s what your colleagues have to say about SEAK’s new retention contract:
“A detail-rich, contingency anticipating masterpiece.”
“Comprehensive. Well worth the $100.”
“Tightens up the loose ends in our [current] agreement.”
“Great [protection] if things go wrong”
“Highly worth the $100.”
“It covers every major point of interest that could come up”
“Your contract will be VERY appreciated by all in this field”
“An absolutely brilliant document.”
SEAK’s expert witness retention agreement is available on CD-ROM. Both WORD and PDF versions are included. Explanatory notes are also included.
Click here to order
Pathologist Expert Witness Admits to Being Self-Taught
Pathologist Admits to Being Self-Taught
TORONTO (AP) — A pathologist whose expert witness testimony against people accused of killing children led to at least seven wrongful convictions said Monday that he taught himself pediatric forensics and was ignorant of the criminal justice system.
Dr. Charles Smith has a medical degree but admitted that he was self-taught in pediatric pathology, the field in which he was once considered a leader in Canada. Smith testified at an inquiry that his lack of formal training contributed to mistakes over two decades of performing autopsies in cases of suspicious child deaths.
Those mistakes included conclusions that several children were homicide victims when later investigations determined they had died of other causes.
"(My training) was self-taught, it was minimal, and retrospectively I realize it was woefully inadequate," he said.
Smith also testified that he was "profoundly ignorant" of the criminal justice system in which he worked and of the role played by expert witnesses, despite providing expert testimony in numerous criminal cases.
Ontario's provincial government ordered the probe after an investigation of 45 child deaths involving autopsies or expert testimony from Smith found the pathologist made questionable findings in 20 cases dating back to 1991. Of those, 12 led to convictions, and at least seven have since been thrown out by courts.
As his lawyer took him case-by-case through his questionable conclusions, Smith admitted errors but also defended those findings as being consistent with medical knowledge at the time.
He said that the review has led him to "appreciate mistakes that I made and I am sorry for them. I do recognize that at times, my conduct was not professional, and I deeply regret that."
"I did give an opinion and I testified in the court and therefore I believe I contributed to a miscarriage of justice," Smith said. "I'm sorry and I do apologize."
Smith's testimony is expected to last the week.
TORONTO (AP) — A pathologist whose expert witness testimony against people accused of killing children led to at least seven wrongful convictions said Monday that he taught himself pediatric forensics and was ignorant of the criminal justice system.
Dr. Charles Smith has a medical degree but admitted that he was self-taught in pediatric pathology, the field in which he was once considered a leader in Canada. Smith testified at an inquiry that his lack of formal training contributed to mistakes over two decades of performing autopsies in cases of suspicious child deaths.
Those mistakes included conclusions that several children were homicide victims when later investigations determined they had died of other causes.
"(My training) was self-taught, it was minimal, and retrospectively I realize it was woefully inadequate," he said.
Smith also testified that he was "profoundly ignorant" of the criminal justice system in which he worked and of the role played by expert witnesses, despite providing expert testimony in numerous criminal cases.
Ontario's provincial government ordered the probe after an investigation of 45 child deaths involving autopsies or expert testimony from Smith found the pathologist made questionable findings in 20 cases dating back to 1991. Of those, 12 led to convictions, and at least seven have since been thrown out by courts.
As his lawyer took him case-by-case through his questionable conclusions, Smith admitted errors but also defended those findings as being consistent with medical knowledge at the time.
He said that the review has led him to "appreciate mistakes that I made and I am sorry for them. I do recognize that at times, my conduct was not professional, and I deeply regret that."
"I did give an opinion and I testified in the court and therefore I believe I contributed to a miscarriage of justice," Smith said. "I'm sorry and I do apologize."
Smith's testimony is expected to last the week.
New Workshop from SEAK, Inc. - How to Become the Go To Expert Witness in Your Field
How to Become the Go To Expert Witness in Your Field
June 17, 2008
Cape Cod, MA
Executive Summary
The “go to” expert witnesses are the ones that attorneys seek out. Attorneys will bring in these experts from out of state and pay a premium for known expertise, quality and attention to detail. Attorneys working on significant cases feel the need to contact the few “go to” experts in the field.
This advanced preconference is taught by analyzing where attendees are at in their expert witness careers. The results of research from “go to” experts and attorneys who use them will be shared and incorporated into the preconference. The preconference will be fast paced and will enable attendees to make critical decisions about what they need to do to become the “go to” expert witness in their field. There will be ample time for questions and answers, and problem solving. Only those experts who want to become a “go to” expert are encouraged to attend.
Click here for more information
June 17, 2008
Cape Cod, MA
Executive Summary
The “go to” expert witnesses are the ones that attorneys seek out. Attorneys will bring in these experts from out of state and pay a premium for known expertise, quality and attention to detail. Attorneys working on significant cases feel the need to contact the few “go to” experts in the field.
This advanced preconference is taught by analyzing where attendees are at in their expert witness careers. The results of research from “go to” experts and attorneys who use them will be shared and incorporated into the preconference. The preconference will be fast paced and will enable attendees to make critical decisions about what they need to do to become the “go to” expert witness in their field. There will be ample time for questions and answers, and problem solving. Only those experts who want to become a “go to” expert are encouraged to attend.
Click here for more information
SEAK Expert Witness Deposition Preparation Checklist
An excellent deposition outline/checklist for expert witnesses.
SEAK, Inc. Expert Witness Deposition Preparation Checklist
Also make sure to check out SEAK's new Deposition text:
Depositions: The Comprehensive Guide for Expert Witnesses
SEAK, Inc. Expert Witness Deposition Preparation Checklist
Also make sure to check out SEAK's new Deposition text:
Depositions: The Comprehensive Guide for Expert Witnesses
Getting Started as an Expert Witness - Interview with Steven Babitsky, Esq. - Part 4
Talk a little bit about the process of cross-examination. What techniques can expert witnesses use to survive it?
I think the most important thing is that they have to know their field. They shouldn’t underestimate the power of the attorneys and their expertise, nor should they underestimate them in finding out information. So the expert has to be honest and truthful. If they are honest and truthful, they’re much less vulnerable to cross examination. In addition, they have to stay within their true area of expertise, and not get involved in tangential issues which will drag them, make them much more vulnerable to cross examination. Doing a high quality job, following a protocol, following a procedure, doing high-quality work, writing good reports, proofreading them, being prepared by retaining counsel, all are ways of surviving and thriving during cross examination. And the other thing is that you have to be a kind of a person that can “rock-and-roll” with adversity. If you’re the kind of person that if somebody asks you a difficult question you have an anxiety attack, this is not the line of work for you because there’ll be a lot of questions asked, and that’s part of the litigation process. It’s an adversarial proceeding in which lawyers will ask hard and difficult questions to help win their case. And the people that do the best are the most qualified and aren’t intimidated easily by difficult questions and answer them as best they can and move on.
What are the biggest mistakes you see people make when getting started as an expert witness?
Usually they don’t get involved in any training. They don’t read any books, they usually have a very poor idea of what they should be doing, and then they make some basic mistakes. For example, doing shoddy work and getting involved in cases they shouldn’t be getting involved in. Most of the times the new experts don’t get retainer agreements, they don’t get paid up front, they don’t get paid at all, they charge too little, they do things that they wouldn’t be proud of later on. And unfortunately a lot of these mistakes become part of their permanent record, so that even though they learn from their mistakes, it’s now difficult to “un-ring the bell.” So my recommendation to these people is that before they run off and start becoming an expert, that they get some training, read some books, learn from people about what they need to do before they open up shop. It would be the equivalent of a person who’s an engineer starting up an engineering practice before he got any training. Or an orthopedic surgeon without any training. You wouldn’t do too well. Well, it’s the same thing with being an expert witness. Getting the training, getting the experience, learning something about your field, reading, researching what you’re going to be doing, learning the forms, and so on and so forth can be very invaluable. Getting a couple of books may cost a few hundred dollars, but can save you thousands and thousands of dollars, and can help build a long and successful career.
Any other advice for someone considering getting starting as an expert witness?
I think that people should think about if they’re suited to this kind of work, if they enjoy confrontation, and if they’re not afraid of confrontation. I think the experts need to be intellectually curious. If you’re the kind of person that’s intellectually curious, you like to solve problems, you like to look at complex situations and try to simplify them, you like to come up with solutions, you are articulate, you enjoy working in a fast-paced environment, then I think you might enjoy being an expert witness.
I think the most important thing is that they have to know their field. They shouldn’t underestimate the power of the attorneys and their expertise, nor should they underestimate them in finding out information. So the expert has to be honest and truthful. If they are honest and truthful, they’re much less vulnerable to cross examination. In addition, they have to stay within their true area of expertise, and not get involved in tangential issues which will drag them, make them much more vulnerable to cross examination. Doing a high quality job, following a protocol, following a procedure, doing high-quality work, writing good reports, proofreading them, being prepared by retaining counsel, all are ways of surviving and thriving during cross examination. And the other thing is that you have to be a kind of a person that can “rock-and-roll” with adversity. If you’re the kind of person that if somebody asks you a difficult question you have an anxiety attack, this is not the line of work for you because there’ll be a lot of questions asked, and that’s part of the litigation process. It’s an adversarial proceeding in which lawyers will ask hard and difficult questions to help win their case. And the people that do the best are the most qualified and aren’t intimidated easily by difficult questions and answer them as best they can and move on.
What are the biggest mistakes you see people make when getting started as an expert witness?
Usually they don’t get involved in any training. They don’t read any books, they usually have a very poor idea of what they should be doing, and then they make some basic mistakes. For example, doing shoddy work and getting involved in cases they shouldn’t be getting involved in. Most of the times the new experts don’t get retainer agreements, they don’t get paid up front, they don’t get paid at all, they charge too little, they do things that they wouldn’t be proud of later on. And unfortunately a lot of these mistakes become part of their permanent record, so that even though they learn from their mistakes, it’s now difficult to “un-ring the bell.” So my recommendation to these people is that before they run off and start becoming an expert, that they get some training, read some books, learn from people about what they need to do before they open up shop. It would be the equivalent of a person who’s an engineer starting up an engineering practice before he got any training. Or an orthopedic surgeon without any training. You wouldn’t do too well. Well, it’s the same thing with being an expert witness. Getting the training, getting the experience, learning something about your field, reading, researching what you’re going to be doing, learning the forms, and so on and so forth can be very invaluable. Getting a couple of books may cost a few hundred dollars, but can save you thousands and thousands of dollars, and can help build a long and successful career.
Any other advice for someone considering getting starting as an expert witness?
I think that people should think about if they’re suited to this kind of work, if they enjoy confrontation, and if they’re not afraid of confrontation. I think the experts need to be intellectually curious. If you’re the kind of person that’s intellectually curious, you like to solve problems, you like to look at complex situations and try to simplify them, you like to come up with solutions, you are articulate, you enjoy working in a fast-paced environment, then I think you might enjoy being an expert witness.
Getting Started as an Expert Witness - Interview with Steven Babitsky, Esq. - Part 3
As an expert witness, could blemishes on your professional record such as disciplinary actions be raised by opposing counsel to discredit your testimony?
Yes. It’s just like your mother said when you were going to school and you were getting in trouble, and she said, “It’s all going to become part of your permanent record.” Well, it’s the same thing here. Any part of your permanent record is fair game for bringing up. So if you had discipline problems, if you were charged with a crime and convicted of a crime, I mean a serious crime, I’m not talking about a speeding ticket. If you were involved in moral turpitude, if you were involved in loss of a license, if you were involved in any fraudulent dealings or anything like that, the attorneys will locate it fairly easily now, and they can bring it up to cross examine you and try to discredit you.
Do you see that happen fairly often?
Yes. The attorneys are very adept at finding information about experts. Most of the experts are used to that, but if an expert, for example, has all kinds of problems, they won’t be an expert very long. They’ll be “knocked out of the box” and they’ll be disqualified, and once you’re disqualified as an expert in one case, there could be some carryover into the next case.
Is it important to be able to explain things not only in technical jargon, but in layman’s terms that a jury can understand?
Yes, in a jury trial the judge is not the one that makes the ultimate decision, it’s the jury. It’s twelve men and women, lay people, who usually are not lawyers, who are usually not experts. Now some juries are pretty savvy and intelligent, and just because a juror doesn’t have a high education doesn’t mean they’re not smart. The lawyers talk about the collective wisdom of the jury. Each person may bring their own experiences, but when you put twelve people together they’re pretty smart, and the expert has to distill the information that he spent ten or twenty years learning into a half an hour or an hour, and be able to explain it in a fashion that can be understood. If it can’t be understood by the jury, then the jury will get upset, they’ll think the expert is talking down to them or making fun of them, or just discredit him because he’s not articulate enough to explain it. So you have to be able to explain what the jury needs to know in a fashion that they can understand.
Do most expert witnesses prefer to work in their own local area, or expand their business by traveling throughout the country?
It would depend on the kind of expert you are. Some experts travel. Some experts confine themselves to a county. Some experts confine themselves to a region, some to a state, some to the Northeast, and some experts travel nationally. By and large I would say most experts confine themselves to their state, and maybe some surrounding or contiguous states. So they might, if they’re in Massachusetts for example, go to Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, or something in the New England area. If you’re a high-powered expert and you have expertise which is hard to get, some lawyers may bring you in across country at substantial expense because they want your kind of expertise.
Is there a lot of competition to be an expert witness in most fields?
It would depend on the field. Some fields have a tremendous amount of competition, for example with medical witnesses there’s a lot of competition. But that doesn’t mean that you still can’t do well, because there’s a lot of need for expertise. The question is not really how much competition there is. The question is how many experts are there for how much business. So if taking an example of, let’s say, a neurosurgeon, there may be 10,000 neurosurgeons, maybe 1,000 or 500 of them who testify, and if there’s thousands of cases there is plenty of business to go around. On the other hand there may only be 200 arborists, or tree experts, but there may only be 1,000 cases to go around, so it depends on the number of cases and the number of people that are trying to get that work.
Are there people who are full-time expert witnesses, or is this something that’s typically done part-time along with your primary career?
Most people start out part-time. They’re an engineer, they do their engineering work, they build bridges and so forth, and in their off hours or during certain parts of the day or parts of the week, they do some expert witness consulting and testimony. As experts generally get older, after they hit fifty or sixty, a lot of them tend to retire from their normal, regular professions, and then some of them go into expert witnessing full-time. So they may have been a civil engineer for thirty years, and now they’re 65 years old, they retire from being a civil engineer and going into the office every day, but they’re more or less a full-time expert.
Yes. It’s just like your mother said when you were going to school and you were getting in trouble, and she said, “It’s all going to become part of your permanent record.” Well, it’s the same thing here. Any part of your permanent record is fair game for bringing up. So if you had discipline problems, if you were charged with a crime and convicted of a crime, I mean a serious crime, I’m not talking about a speeding ticket. If you were involved in moral turpitude, if you were involved in loss of a license, if you were involved in any fraudulent dealings or anything like that, the attorneys will locate it fairly easily now, and they can bring it up to cross examine you and try to discredit you.
Do you see that happen fairly often?
Yes. The attorneys are very adept at finding information about experts. Most of the experts are used to that, but if an expert, for example, has all kinds of problems, they won’t be an expert very long. They’ll be “knocked out of the box” and they’ll be disqualified, and once you’re disqualified as an expert in one case, there could be some carryover into the next case.
Is it important to be able to explain things not only in technical jargon, but in layman’s terms that a jury can understand?
Yes, in a jury trial the judge is not the one that makes the ultimate decision, it’s the jury. It’s twelve men and women, lay people, who usually are not lawyers, who are usually not experts. Now some juries are pretty savvy and intelligent, and just because a juror doesn’t have a high education doesn’t mean they’re not smart. The lawyers talk about the collective wisdom of the jury. Each person may bring their own experiences, but when you put twelve people together they’re pretty smart, and the expert has to distill the information that he spent ten or twenty years learning into a half an hour or an hour, and be able to explain it in a fashion that can be understood. If it can’t be understood by the jury, then the jury will get upset, they’ll think the expert is talking down to them or making fun of them, or just discredit him because he’s not articulate enough to explain it. So you have to be able to explain what the jury needs to know in a fashion that they can understand.
Do most expert witnesses prefer to work in their own local area, or expand their business by traveling throughout the country?
It would depend on the kind of expert you are. Some experts travel. Some experts confine themselves to a county. Some experts confine themselves to a region, some to a state, some to the Northeast, and some experts travel nationally. By and large I would say most experts confine themselves to their state, and maybe some surrounding or contiguous states. So they might, if they’re in Massachusetts for example, go to Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, or something in the New England area. If you’re a high-powered expert and you have expertise which is hard to get, some lawyers may bring you in across country at substantial expense because they want your kind of expertise.
Is there a lot of competition to be an expert witness in most fields?
It would depend on the field. Some fields have a tremendous amount of competition, for example with medical witnesses there’s a lot of competition. But that doesn’t mean that you still can’t do well, because there’s a lot of need for expertise. The question is not really how much competition there is. The question is how many experts are there for how much business. So if taking an example of, let’s say, a neurosurgeon, there may be 10,000 neurosurgeons, maybe 1,000 or 500 of them who testify, and if there’s thousands of cases there is plenty of business to go around. On the other hand there may only be 200 arborists, or tree experts, but there may only be 1,000 cases to go around, so it depends on the number of cases and the number of people that are trying to get that work.
Are there people who are full-time expert witnesses, or is this something that’s typically done part-time along with your primary career?
Most people start out part-time. They’re an engineer, they do their engineering work, they build bridges and so forth, and in their off hours or during certain parts of the day or parts of the week, they do some expert witness consulting and testimony. As experts generally get older, after they hit fifty or sixty, a lot of them tend to retire from their normal, regular professions, and then some of them go into expert witnessing full-time. So they may have been a civil engineer for thirty years, and now they’re 65 years old, they retire from being a civil engineer and going into the office every day, but they’re more or less a full-time expert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)