Category: Expert Witness Testimony

United States Court House
Expert WitnessExpert Witness Testimony

Expert Witness 101 (Part 1): What You Need To Know

on April 16, 2024

INTRODUCTION

Have you watched any major court trials, like DEPP V. HEARD on Netflix or Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery on Hulu? If so, then you are familiar with a courtroom scene, the judge, jury, attorneys, and their clients. There are always witnesses, but what is the difference between a regular witness and an expert witness? Why are they necessary, and how would an attorney go about finding one? Who knows, YOU may qualify as an expert witness yourself but you just don’t know it. In this blog post you will learn if you have the qualifications and, if so, how to establish a new source of income.

Fair Trial or Deposition for Expert Witness

WHAT IS AN EXPERT WITNESS?

Expert Witness Definition

The significant benefit of this industry is that anyone can become an expert witness! According to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, “An expert witness is a person with specialized knowledge, skills, education, or experience in a particular field who is called upon to provide their expertise in legal proceedings to assist the court with understanding complex, technical, or scientific issues.” Attorneys serving the plaintiff and defendant can both hire expert witnesses and pay them for their testimony and consultation. The expert witness must also qualify under specific FRE 702 criteria to certify their testimony is “relevant” and “reliable.” As of December 1st, 2023, the amendments to the federal rule have gone into effect (photo credit – Perkins Coie):

Amendments for FRE R 702 Expert Witness Testimony

Proskauer similarly describes the new language added by the amendment as:

  1. A court may not admit expert testimony unless the proponent establishes its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
  2. A court must find that an expert’s opinion follows from a reliable application of the methodology to the facts at issue before that opinion is heard by a jury.

Business Consultant Definition

Some experts choose not to work in litigation. They do not want to subject themselves to the possibility of grueling questions or contentious court proceedings. These professionals would be considered Business Consultants or Consulting Experts. They receive payment for their assistance in a settlement or mediation. These experts act in the same way as Expert Witnesses, but they do not testify in trial or present evidence to a court. 

How Much Experience Do You Need?

Unfortunately, a straightforward answer to this question does not exist. It is relative to your chosen industry. For instance, experience in the medical and engineering fields vastly differs from experience in more creative and less analytical fields. However, that is not to say one industry is superior to the other purely based on years of experience. Comparing experiences to others is like comparing apples to oranges; it can not be done. Ultimately, as long as you qualify under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, or the applicable state test, then you can be an expert witness.

Movie: My Cousin Vinny

One of the most unexpected yet hilarious examples of expert witness testimony is from the movie My Cousin Vinny.

Vinny Gambini, played by Joe Pesci, a fairly new street-smart lawyer from New York who’s prone to verbal shenanigans, accepts the opportunity to defend his cousin accused of murder. During the trial scene he puts his girlfriend, Mona Lisa Vito, played by Marisa Tomei, on the stand. From her looks (sequin sweater, short leather skirt, and bright red lipstick), one wouldn’t expect her to be qualified to testify about cars, a pivotal aspect of the case. It turns out her expertise stemmed from her practical experience working in her father’s garage since childhood. Mona Lisa’s hands-on knowledge of cars, engines, and automotive mechanics helped her analyze the tire marks in the scene.

I will spare the rest of the details to avoid revealing any spoilers. While the movie is fictional, the testimony scene is possible at a judge’s discretion. Here is Mona Lisa’s expert witness testimony scene from My Cousin Vinny.

EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY CRITERIA

The Daubert Standard

The court has a systematic framework to assess the relevance, validity, and reliability of expert witness testimony before it is presented to the jury. The Daubert Standard grants trial judges the responsibility to be “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence and aims to mitigate their reliance on an expert’s reputation and credentials. Lastly, all Federal Courts use the Daubert Standard. Some states may use the original framework, the Frye Standard.

From the Daubert Standard, trial courts use these five factors to prove the validity of expert witness testimony and methodology:

  • Whether the technique or theory in question can be, and has been tested.
  • Whether it has been subjected to publication and peer review.
  • Its known or potential error rate.
  • The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation.
  • Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
Expert Witness Testimony

PARTING WORDS

To summarize, becoming an expert witness is not a complicated process. An expert witness is responsible for objectively opining on the facts of the case using industry knowledge to support their testimony. The law offers guidelines to ensure you qualify as an expert witness to secure valid and unbiased testimony from legitimate professionals. Becoming an expert witness or a business consultant builds credibility and expands business and networking opportunities. With the requisite knowledge, you can be confident and secure in your testimony. Stay tuned for Part 2 of this blog series, which will give tips for starting your business and the best practices to do so!

EvidenceExpert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyUncategorized

Safeguarding Your Reputation as an Expert Witness

on January 16, 2024

In 20 years in the legal industry and nearly 14 working with expert witnesses, I’ve never seen such a damaging assault on an expert witness practice as I did at the end of 2023. Something so destructive it has the potential to erase an expert’s practice. It must be discussed as a cautionary tale.

DISCLAIMER: We are not taking a position on the performance or practice of Professor Eli Bartov. We have not read his reports, seen his trial testimony, or reviewed trial transcripts in the case of New York v. Trump. This article is about the impact of judicial statements on your expert witness practice and serve as caution when taking high profile cases. We still want you to take high profile cases.

What Happened?

On December 18, 2023, Reuters wrote an article that may absolutely destroy the expert witness practice of Professor Eli Bartov. Professor Bartov is a professor of accounting at NYU Stern School of Business. He served as an expert witness in the New York civil fraud trial against former President Donald Trump.

Other major news publications (CNBC, Newsweek, NBC News), with search engine domain authority, also wrote articles on and around the same date.

In each of these articles, the publishers quoted presiding Justice Arthur Engoron’s analysis of Professor Bartov’s testimony which stated, “All that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.”

That statement, my dear friends and colleagues, can be a career killer for nearly any expert witness. The judge’s statement may not only affect Professor Bartov’s practice, but the rippling effect of its repetition by major publications tarnishes his online reputation. It is just the beginning of the trouble.

Worst Negative Statement by a Judge I’ve Ever Seen:

If you are an expert witness, you never, ever want a judge of any court to comment in such a negative way about your work. Judge Engoron’s statement essentially calls Professor Bartov a “hired gun,” and questions his competency by indicating the analysis is trash.

You cannot control what a judge says or does. Judges may find your methodology lacking or your opinions to be unsupported. A comment on those issues would be unfortunate but it would not destroy your credibility or reputation. Should the comment resurface in a future proceeding, a capable attorney would probably be able to rehabilitate your credibility as an expert witness.

We have long discussed the need to protect your reputation and credibility. Nothing is more important. The job of opposing counsel is to chip away at your credibility. A high-profile case like this is going to put your expertise and opinions under broader and more intense scrutiny. Not just by counsel but by the media.

After a while, some might ignore the comments of this judge. They may say it was a high-profile political case and the judge was biased against the defendant and thereby biased against the defendant’s experts. I’m not here to discuss those items. Leave the politics at the door. We take the outcome as a lesson to be used in your expert witness practice.

Impact of a Minor Negative Statement by a Judge:

Opposing counsel, in future cases, may scour records of previous cases to find your reports, deposition, and trial transcripts, and may read rulings by judges to find ways to discredit your work. It is their job to undermine your expertise for the benefit of their client. Do not take it personally. It is an unfortunate side effect of our adversarial judicial system.

If they find a negative statement by a judge, they may use it against you in trial to impeach your credibility or question your reputation.

It is the job of the lawyer or law firm that retains your services to counter impeachment-attempts and to rehabilitate your credibility. You assist your counsel in countering impeachment attempts by doing objectively good work, using defensible scientific methodologies and taking cases where you know you can provide an objective and dispassionate analysis.

With some effort, a normal run-of-the-mill disparaging or negative comment by a judge is easily outweighed by your other solid work.

Why this is so Damaging Beyond the Courtroom:

As I mentioned above, so many major news organizations reported about this statement by Judge Engoron. When reading the Reuters article and the damaging comment about Professor Bartov’s efforts in the case, I had to dig further to see how this proliferated. More than4 weeks later the problem continues. I’m not sure SEO geniuses can rehabilitate the online reputation.

Here are some searches a lawyer is likely to do in the preliminary stages of due diligence before hiring this expert in the future.

I encourage you to conduct the following searches, noting that the results may vary by date and location. Here is one search a lawyer is likely to do:

Professor Bartov, NYU Stern School of Business has excellent domain authority and ranks right at the top of a Google search. It is the 3rd organic search result that lets you know the professor testified in a trial involving a former US President. That’s an article of interest for any attorney considering retaining an expert.

There’s nothing horrifically bad in this article. It talks about the amount of fees, but reporters love to write about the amount of expert witness fees. You do see that out of the first seven results, the last 2 results discuss credibility. That becomes a significant issue for any expert.

Let’s try another search. How about “eli bartov expert witness.”

Ouch. We now have several search results discussing credibility.

Most attorneys concerned about hiring an expert witness to assist with a client matter may be now totally unable or unwilling to take a chance on an expert with this sort of easily identifiable negative coverage.

You see, even if the judge was wrong in his statement, the media could have entirely destroyed any chance for this expert to be hired in a future matter because an attorney cannot take the chance of hiring this person and having their credibility called into question.

Finally, let’s assume another simple search. What if counsel searches “eli bartov trump.” This is the worst result.

Okay, well let’s try Bing and see if the results are any different. We try “eli bartov” again.

You get the drift. Second result discusses credibility. It’s very damaging.

In Conclusion:

Any lawyer considering retaining your services is going to be nearly impossible if they find this kind of coverage because opposing counsel is going to have a field day with these stories.

Might you be able to rehabilitate this reputation? Maybe. Will counsel be willing to take on that fight when they’re trying to win a matter on behalf of their client? Unlikely. Remember, you’re in business and you must sell your reputation.

I do not want to dissuade you from taking high-profile matters. They can be great for your practice. They can also be awful for your practice.

If you’re on a high-profile case, it is that much more important to do objectively good work, using defensible scientific methodologies and taking cases within your expertise where you know you can provide an objective and dispassionate analysis. Remember that your analysis will be under more microscopes than normal.

DepositionExpert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyTestimony

Law: Gender Gap in Expert Witness Work

on February 15, 2023

On June 10th, 1963, the Equal Pay Act was enacted to require men and women to receive the same pay for the same work. Over 50 years later, gender equality still dominates workplace conversation. Since the 1960s, this “pay gap” has closed significantly, so it is best to recognize progress. For some industries, however, the pay isn’t even the issue. It’s the gender, or lack thereof. In a multi-million-dollar industry with many participants, it is difficult to ignore the underrepresentation of women in the expert witness industry. 

The Financial Times stated, “Last year in the Who’s Who Legal expert witness directory, just 16 percent of the experts listed were female.” The same article also mentioned a 2020 study by PwC and Queen Mary University. Out of 180 arbitral proceedings awards managed by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and New York between 2014-2018, only 11% were given to female expert witnesses. This blog aims to explain why the gap exists, provides tips for those in the legal industry to encourage women to participate in expert witness work, and includes accounts from Liability Insurance Expert and Experts.com Member, Jane M. Downey, ARM, M.Ed.

Three central reasons contribute to the scarcity of female expert witnesses. The first reason is simply that it is a male-dominated industry. For instance, according to Bloomberg ABA/BNA Lawyer’s Manual on Professional Conduct, “an astonishing 80 percent of expert witnesses chosen by attorneys are male.” Considering the field has been male-centric for an extended period, attorneys are more inclined to work and cooperate with male expert witnesses. The second reason stems from the first, which is a lack of availability. The same article states “there are far more male experts to choose from in almost all specialties – with the prominent exception of nursing.”

The third reason involves gender stereotypes and roles which have always existed in our society. The Jury Expert released an article about the ways gender bias affects both male and female expert witnesses. An excerpt from the article states, “Some studies have shown that men may be more influential and persuasive than women, particularly when they occupy traditionally masculine roles.” Prejudice is more likely to surface when women pursue roles that do not correspond to their gender’s expectations (structural engineer, police policy, construction defect), which may occur on a case-by-case basis. That is not to say people should only pursue occupations limited to their gender norms. The prejudice correlates to how an expert may be perceived by juries and judges. “The degree to which the expert’s gender and the type of case agree (what researchers call ‘gender congruence’) may be important in determining whether a male or female expert will be more credible and persuasive,” The Jury Expert.

The above reasons generally explain the lack of female expert witness testimony. Individually, women have different experiences in their expert witness work. The following is an insightful Q&A with Jane M. Downey, ARM, M.Ed, regarding her experience as a female Liability Insurance expert witness:

Q: How did you discover expert witness work?

A: My first case was a referral from the President of the Insurance Society of Philadelphia. I did not like that case because it had a 48-hour Federal turnaround timeline and was very stressful; therefore, I did not pursue the work until a few years later. It was then I was approached on a massive case, and I really enjoyed the work and the team of attorneys that I supported.

Q: What was the deciding factor for you to participate in providing expert witness testimony?

A: I have always loved to write and teach.

Q: Have you faced any difficulty as a female expert witness?

A: I think being female has given me an advantage. I stand out in all the listings.

Q: Why do you think there is a gender gap in the insurance industry? Do you think it might be attributed to a lack of knowledge of expert witness work as an option for financial income or other factors like gender roles?

A: I think there is a gender gap in the insurance industry, but it is much narrower now than in other industries. To be an expert witness, you have to be willing to be confrontational. I know a lot of women who avoid conflict.

Q: How should the legal industry encourage women to consider participating in expert witness work?

A: Training, training, training. I did not realize until recently that my master’s degree in Group Dynamics prepared me for this work and my work as an insurance arbitrator.

There are initiatives in place to inspire women to consider expert witness work as a part-time or full-time job. The previous Financial Times article highlighted a campaign called The Equal Representation for Expert Witnesses. Initiated in 2015, its goal is to help women market themselves to the legal industry. According to the article, “the pledge has 4,129 individuals and 983 organizations in 143 countries as signatories.” With movements such as this, hopefully, we will see more women entering the arena of participants for expert testimony.

Ultimately, attorneys, male or female, must do their due diligence in selecting the most highly qualified expert for their case, regardless of gender. But if women are absent from the pool of experts there can be no expectation for change. With proper training and industry knowledge, women can find expert witness work to be intellectually challenging, lucrative, and satisfying. A special thank you to Liability Insurance Expert and Expert.com Member Jane M. Downey, ARM, M.Ed for taking the time to contribute to our latest blog post.

Expert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyLawyers

Experts.com Brings Attorneys and Expert Witnesses Together with its AssistedSearch Service

on August 9, 2022

In the years since Experts.com launched, we have offered an expert witness location solution which reduces the costs of litigation. Our founder, Nabil Zumout, was deep into the Internet while practicing as law as an attorney in 1999. He was searching for an expert on a case and was using Google before Google was the cool 800-pound Gorilla of search engine advertising that it is today.

At that time, Nabil determined there was no need for him to reach out to an expert witness broker to locate expertise. Information was democratized and at his fingertips. He could search for experts himself. The benefit of self-searching is his client didn’t have to pay an additional 25-50% markup on each hour billed by the expert witness. There was also no need to pay a finder’s fee for those brokers who required such.

For years we encouraged lawyers to search our site and contact experts directly. In fact, we still encourage this effort. In most situations, you can locate and communicate with the appropriate candidates for all your needs. Based on our data, we estimate about 99% of our users search the site, locate an expert, and retain them without having to contact Experts.com.

Our mission was being accomplished. For those willing to use the Internet, they could find what they needed by conducting a simple search on Experts.com. However, over the years we’ve discovered there is another group of lawyers who do not want to conduct the search themselves.

Whether they are too busy or still uncomfortable with a basic Boolean search, we do not want to lose them as customers and we do not want our experts to lose the prospective business.

Announcing our AssistedSearch Service:

To continue our mission of reducing the cost of litigation, we did not want to participate in billable hour markup or brokering of the engagements between lawyers and experts.

We determined the best way to achieve this while also efficiently connecting attorneys and experts, was to offer a flat-fee location service. For those who have read this far, our flat-fee service is $995.00.

What’s Included?

Simply reach out to us by clicking Assisted Search Request. Provide us with a brief description of the case and the type of expert you need.

  • We’ll follow up with a brief questionnaire for a clearer understanding of the nuances of the case, opposing counsel, and timeline.
  • After our communications with you, our team will begin the search, interviewing potential candidates to determine qualifications and ability to assist.
  • At the conclusion of our communications with available candidates, we will send you a report of our most qualified group of candidates with a brief description of the exchange. The referral is processed at this time.
  • Additionally, we create an account for you on Experts.com and include a link to each qualified expert. Each of your requests is tracked separately in this account. You can even communicate with the candidates through our cloud-based tracking system.
  • Our flat fee is $995 for a minimum of 6 hours of location services at an hourly rate of $165. If we are unsuccessful in providing qualified candidates, the fee is waived.
  • At no point do we add a premium to the expert’s hourly fees.

Free Database Search:

Don’t want to use our AssistedSearch service? You always have the option of searching Experts.com and communicating directly with the experts. The contact information of those actively marketing their services on our site is always available.

Ultimately, the goal at Experts.com is to make the process efficient and affordable for all parties. If you have any questions about Experts.com or our newly minted AssistedSearch service, feel free to reach out to us here.

EvidenceExpert WitnessExpert Witness Testimony

Cancer Verdict Overturned: Trial Court did not follow Daubert Expert Witness Standard

on July 26, 2021

$117 million talcum powder Mesothelioma verdict overturned by failure of the trial court to follow their gate-keeping role.

In an article today from Husch Blackwell, they highlight a case in which a significant verdict for the plaintiffs was recently overturned by the appellate court for failures to conduct a proper Daubert analysis.

As most of our members are aware, a “Daubert hearing” or “Daubert review” is the standard used by the trial court for admitting expert witness testimony. It is the federal standard for admitting expert witness testimony, but the standard has been adopted by a majority of US states.

For your brief review, I’ve decided to add the elements of the Daubert test below, from Cornell Law School:

  1. whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested;
  2. whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
  3. its known or potential error rate;
  4. the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation;
  5. whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

There have been a wide variety of mesothelioma lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of baby powder products. Generally speaking, the issue arises from long-term talcum powder use allegedly exposing plaintiffs to asbestos in the talcum powder which causes mesothelioma.

In my 11 years in the expert witness field, there have only been a couple toxic tort matters where the science has been as fiercely contested as it is in the talcum powder cases. The only other cases in recent memory where the science is hotly debated involves lymphoma resulting from the herbicide Round-Up. The Round-Up lawsuits resulted in an $11B settlement between plaintiffs and defendants.

This talcum powder case out of New Jersey, was very similar to the other talcum powder cases. The plaintiffs, Stephen Lanzo III and his wife sued a variety of defendants including one Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, claiming Mr. Lanzo’s long-term use of baby powder caused him to contract mesothelioma.

The trial judge permitted testimony from two of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Dr. James S. Webber, Ph.D. and Jacqueline Moline, M.D. On appeal, the 3-judge panel overturned the verdict because they didn’t think the trial court applied a proper Daubert standard in permitting the testimony from doctors Webber and Moline.

According to the article from Husch Blackwell attorney Brittany Lomax, the appellate court basically found that three prongs of the Daubert test were not met, “Namely, the opinions and theories were not tested, not subject to peer review and publication, and were not generally accepted in the scientific community. The panel further held that the trial court did not perform ‘its required gatekeeping function’ by failing to conduct a proper analysis to determine whether the expert opinions met the Daubert standards and failing to assess the methodology or the underlying data used by the two experts to form their opinions.”

As a result, the appellate court remanded to the trial court and ordered new trials for two of the defendants.

It is worth noting, this is a major win for defendants in these talcum powder cases. It appears the appeals courts, at least in New Jersey, are going to review scientific evidence with exceptional rigor.

EvidenceExpert WitnessExpert Witness Testimony

Expert Witness Liability, According to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

on November 2, 2018

Recently, we have received some questions from expert witnesses regarding potential liability for expert witness testimony. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this issue last Friday.

Last week, on October 26th, 2018, the United States, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal common law “witness litigation privilege” protects an expert witness for civil claims stemming from their testimony.

The best summary of the decision that I found comes from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP’s, Gravel2Gavel Blog. You can find the blog post here.

The matter involved a coal miner who was claiming benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. According to the expert witness the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim and the claim was denied. Thereafter, a report from the Center for Public Integrity alleged the “Johns Hopkins radiology unit and its expert witnesses were much less likely to find evidence of black lung disease than other doctors.”

The report from the Center for Public Integrity led to a lawsuit against Johns Hopkins and their doctors claiming liability for fraud, tortious interference, misrepresentation and more. The trial court dismissed the claim citing the federal common law “witness litigation privilege.” According to Gravel2Gavel, the appeals court was divided on the issue, but agreed with the trial court decision.

The Fourth Circuit stated “absolute immunity” applies to the expert witness testimony. They went further to state, “‘when a witness takes the oath, submitting his own testimony to cross-examination, the common law does not allow his participation to be deterred or undermined by subsequent collateral actions for damages.’” This is a really wordy way for the court to say an expert witness cannot later be sued for their testimony.

We also went ahead and summarized the ruling in this video:

EvidenceExpert WitnessExpert Witness Testimony

Florida Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Daubert Expert Witness Standard

on October 17, 2018

Since 2013, Florida has been the center of a battle over admissibility standards for expert witness testimony.

Prior to a move by the legislature in 2013, Florida followed the Frye Standard (i.e. general acceptance test). This test is considered a more lenient in allowing for expert witness testimony.

Normally, this standard is preferred by plaintiff’s counsel and disliked by defense counsel. Much like the “general acceptance test,” my last statement is a generalization.

In 2013, the Florida Legislature passed a law changing the admissibility standard from Frye, to the federal standard commonly referred to as Daubert Standard. Rather than the general acceptance test, the judge as the gatekeeper, would apply a multi-pronged test to analyze the admissibility of expert evidence. Here are the prongs per Cornell Law:

  1. whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested;
  2. whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
  3. its known or potential error rate;
  4. the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation;
  5. whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

Most of our members are familiar with the Daubert Standard because it is the standard used by federal courts and more than three-quarters of US states. Naturally, my home state of California still uses Frye because we always want to do things a little differently. Well, according to the Florida Supreme Court ruling this week, Florida likes to do things differently as well.

To summarize, the Florida Supreme Court found the law implementing the Daubert Standard to be an unconstitutional infringement on the court’s authority by the legislature.

The decision was covered by CBS Miami, and the most pertinent part is as follows:

“We recognize that Frye and Daubert are competing methods for a trial judge to determine the reliability of expert testimony before allowing it to be admitted into evidence,” Justice Peggy Quince wrote in the majority decision, joined by justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Jorge Labarga. “Both purport to provide a trial judge with the tools necessary to ensure that only reliable evidence is presented to the jury. Frye relies on the scientific community to determine reliability whereas Daubert relies on the scientific savvy of trial judges to determine the significance of the methodology used. With our decision today, we reaffirm that Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida courts.”

It was a 4-3 decision by the Florida Supreme Court and the Chief Justice offered an impassioned dissent. For our members practicing in Florida, the law is clear, the Supreme Court has decided Frye is the appropriate standard for Florida.

Expert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyFraudLawyers

Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen’s Home and Office Searched by Feds: Attorney-Client Privilege?

on April 10, 2018

Yesterday, news broke about the FBI raiding the home and office of longtime Donald Trump attorney, Michael Cohen. All the major news outlets and talking heads are discussing the matter. Naturally, I felt I should join in and add some food for thought from the expert witness perspective. Assuming the case against Michael Cohen goes to trial, there are likely to be a variety of experts called to opine on different issues. At the time of this writing, reports indicate the federal government is investigating Mr. Cohen for both bank fraud and wire fraud.

Here is what we have learned since yesterday. According to NBC News:

“On Monday, the FBI raided the law office of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. They were seeking information about a $130,000 payment the attorney says he personally made to adult film star Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 election, sources told NBC News.

The search warrants were sought and executed by FBI agents and federal prosecutors in New York in coordination with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team after an initial referral from Mueller’s office.”

We have further discovered that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would have to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if his investigation discovered evidence unrelated to Russian interference in the US election. If such information was discovered, Rosenstein would then have to decide to expand the scope of Mueller’s investigation or refer the new investigation to another US Attorney’s office. It appears the Cohen investigation was referred to the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

In essence, search and seizure of a lawyers office, where that lawyer maintains protected attorney-client communications, had to go near the top of the Justice Department. Thereafter, a warrant had to be approved by a federal judge, before the FBI could conduct the raid and seize these protected communications (among other evidence).

What about attorney-client privilege?

We should start with a simple definition of the attorney-client privilege. Here is a definition from Nolo.com: “The attorney-client privilege is a rule that preserves the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients’ secrets, nor may others force them to.”

Finding the violation of attorney-client privilege a little disconcerting (note, I am not addressing the possible crime-fraud exception to the rule), I reached out to one of our legal and judicial ethics experts for comment. Experts.com member, Mark Harrison, Esq., is an Arizona-based civil and appellate litigator at the firm of Osborn Maledon, PA. He has extensive experience litigating and testifying in cases involving legal malpractice, legal ethics, and judicial ethics.

My request of Mr. Harrison was as follows, “Do you see any issues arising from this seizure related to fiduciary duties, attorney-client privilege, judicial ethics, or other items?”

Mr. Harrison provided me with a rather thorough explanation based on available information. Details about the subpoena or the documents seeking the subpoena have not been reported at this time. I have included several pertinent comments from Mr. Harrison, below:

“As I am sure you are aware, in order to get a subpoena issued in this situation the US Attorney had to satisfy a magistrate judge or a federal district judge that there was good cause for the issuance of the subpoena.

The potentially dicey ethics aspect involved in a situation of this kind is the risk that confidential client information – other than the information clearly covered by the subpoena – is inadvertently or unintentionally taken by the FBI officers executing the subpoena.”

According to news reports, none of us know whether Mr. Cohen has clients other than President Trump. If he does have other clients, Mr. Harrison explained, “the FBI officers executing the subpoena must exercise great care not to compromise the confidentiality afforded the information of other clients in Mr. Cohen’s files or to compromise the confidentiality of information relating to Mr. Trump that is beyond the scope of the subpoena.”

My personal experience in law firms and my professional responsibility education in law school left me with the belief that the attorney-client relationship was sacred. There was good reason for this as it encouraged clients to be open and honest with counsel so counsel could zealously represent their interests. As such, I am hoping the FBI does exercise great care in the review of these files. However, in reviewing documents, the FBI has to view the documents to know whether or not they are “beyond the scope of the subpoena.”

I had one follow up question for Mark Harrison. I asked if he thought a judge would ask an expert on legal ethics to oversee the review of attorney-client files to make sure the federal agents didn’t go beyond the scope of the subpoena? In asking this question, I also realized that the judge is likely to fill that role. However, I was interested to see if additional oversight might be necessary in this case.

Mr. Harrison said “I would be surprised if the judge or magistrate appoints an expert for that purpose unless Cohen’s lawyer seeks that oversight.”

So, based on information available to us at this point, the attorney-client privilege has or will be breached by the federal agents in their review of documents maintained by Mr. Cohen.

It’ll be interesting to see how this case develops and what other expert witnesses may be involved in a future criminal prosecution.

Does this open Michael Cohen to professional malpractice?

Some questions I have for future blog posts are as follows: Does the breach of attorney-client privilege by the FBI, expose Mr. Cohen to malpractice liability? Does the attorney have a duty to conduct himself in a way that would have precluded the FBI or anyone else from seizing all of his files? Does an attorney have a professional responsibility to avoid suspicion that may potentially place confidential client information at risk of being breached? Or, does the issuance of a search warrant protect the attorney from civil liability?

 

 

 

Expert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyPsychology

Voodoo Cases Trigger Memories of Child Witchcraft Expert Witness Request

on February 12, 2018

In an article posted today in the Associated Press on Yahoo News brought back memories of one of the most unusual expert witness requests ever received. In the article from Yahoo News, Voodoo followers fear a backlash after two separate crimes against children were committed in the last two months. Due to similarities in the crimes, authorities have identified Voodoo rituals as a motivating factor in the injuries sustained by the child victims.

The two cases happened in Massachusetts. The first crime occurred in East Bridgewater, MA, when two sisters were arrested for restraining and burning a 5-year-old girl in an attempt to rid her of a demon. The child suffered permanent disfigurement. The violence against the child was described as a “Voodoo ritual.” Nearly a week later in Brockton, MA, a mother was arrested for stabbing two of her children in what the mother described as “Voodoo stuff.”

Two separate crimes, within close proximity, and both mentioning or characterizing rituals as related to Voodoo, have upset followers of local community members who practice Haitian Vodou, as they fear the crimes will result in a backlash against their culture and religion. The article explains “practitioners of Haitian Vodou, which adherents spell differently to distinguish it from other variants, say the religion does not sanction violence and fear the crimes will spark a backlash against their community.”

Reading this article sparked a memory of one of the most interesting cases presented to me during my time with Experts.com. It was not the most high-profile expert witness request I had ever received, but it was one of my first international expert requests.

The Child Witchcraft Expert Witness Request

Criminal defense counsel out of UK had contacted me via email. He was looking for several expert witnesses. His first two requests were common enough: forensic psychiatrist and child psychologist. It was the third request, for a Child Witchcraft expert, that forced me to do some in-depth research and search beyond our database to located the appropriate expert witness. First of all, I had no idea to what the attorney was referring. This was the first time in my life I had ever heard of the “Child Witch Phenomenon” or “Child Witchcraft.” As such, the research on the subject was basically to educate myself on the topic before I started contacting expert witness candidates.

While researching, I discovered… In several countries in Africa (Nigeria, Congo and others), there is a severe cultural and religious fear of witches as they are the crux of evil. According to this 2010 article from CNN, “Pastors in southeast Nigeria claim illness and poverty are caused by witches who bring terrible misfortune to those around them. And those denounced as witches must be cleansed through deliverance or cast out.”

Often, children are the ones accused of being witches. In order to cleanse the child, they are beaten, tortured, and sometimes buried alive. Some children have been stabbed to death in an attempt to free them from the witch’s grasp.

Religious leaders in some African countries have taken advantage of this belief in Child Witchcraft. They will offer to expel or exorcise the witch for a price. A pretty good way to make a living if you are dealing with a poor and uneducated populace. Rather than being made aware of mental health disorders that could be impacting a child’s behavior, these pastors have made a living preying on a family’s fear.

How did the case make it to the UK?

The UK has a large immigrant population. Those emigrating from areas in Africa where the Child Witch Phenomenon is rampant, now find themselves in a new country with new laws and a different appreciation of mental health disorders and treatment.

At the time we processed the referral for a Child Witchcraft expert witness, I recall there having been 10-12 UK-based criminal trials involving Child Witchcraft allegations. A child appears uncontrollable, possibly dealing with early onset mental illness, and the parents seek the counsel of religious leaders. Those leaders recommend exorcism. Exorcism involves violence, the child is severely harmed, the police get involved, and criminal complaints are filed. The prosecution begins.

Is this now happening in Massachusetts? Instead of the Child Witch Phenomenon, is the State dealing with a similar Voodoo-based phenomena?

How do we as a society, address these types of issues before the child is endangered and the parents are on trial? Is it a matter of educating parents, community, and religious leaders about mental illness? Do we need to improve awareness of treatment? Your comments are welcome!

 

Expert WitnessExpert Witness TestimonyLawyersLitigationMedical

Opioid Crisis – An increase in addiction medicine and pain management expert witnesses.

on November 6, 2017

In the nearly 8 years that I’ve been with Experts.com, I have noticed a massive increase in the number of addiction medicine and pain management expert witnesses marketing their services with our company. Between 2010, when I joined Experts.com, and today, the increase has been nearly five-fold.

Is this increase a surprise? Based on what we’re seeing in the news, the answer is no. The United States is experiencing an opioid epidemic. According to CNN’s Opioid Crisis Fast Facts, “more than two million of Americans have become dependent on or abused prescription pain pills and street drugs.” CNN further explains, “during 2015, there were 52,404 overdose deaths in the United States, including 33,091 (63.1%) that involved an opioid. That’s an average of 91 opioid overdose deaths each day.”

Just last week, I spoke to one expert witness who experienced an opioid-related death in his family.  The same day, hours apart, another expert began promoting his pain management and addiction medicine services on our site. This epidemic is impacting millions of families throughout our country. As a result of this epidemic, and much of the overdoses stemming from prescription medication, we are beginning to see significant litigation in the area of opioid-based pharmaceuticals.

Our Opioid Litigation Experiences:

Experts.com has processed more than a handful of expert witness referrals related to opioids. The cases have ranged from prescription abuse in family law settings to overdose issues resulting in wrongful death actions. Probably the most interesting opioid-related matter was as follows: general counsel for a mining company in a small town discovered the townspeople were using methadone at a rate approximately 5 times higher than the national average. Many citizens of the town were also employees of the mining company. They grew concerned about the potential liabilities of employees operating heavy equipment while ingesting powerful pain killers. The company decided to do some testing which triggered some privacy concerns and potential litigation. We have delivered toxicologists, addiction medicine specialists, and pain management professionals in dozens of different opioid-related cases.

Recent Litigation:

In the last few years, we have seen stories of both civil and criminal litigation related to the opioid epidemic, even before it was claimed to be a crisis. Here are a few of the cases you may want to follow:

Civil Litigation:

There have been many lawsuits against Purdue Pharma (maker of OxyContin) since the early 2000’s. As one article explains, more and more state and local governments are launching lawsuits against the manufacturers and distributors of heavy-duty pain medications. The frequency of these lawsuits is almost weekly.  In addition to Purdue Pharma, Cardinal Health, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and others are targeted.

In July of this year, one of the lawyers, Michael Moore, who targeted tobacco companies in the 1990’s, began urging state lawsuits against the drug makers. By August, an Oregon County sued pharmaceutical companies for $250 million for allegedly persuading physicians to over prescribe opioids. As of September, Attorneys General in 37 states were urging insurance companies to do more to curb the opioid epidemic.

What can we deduce from the high-profile coverage of civil suits against the makers of pain killers? In my assessment, the worst is yet to come for the drug makers. This does not mean the drug makers are defenseless against the lawsuits. After all, there are others in the supply chain to be blamed: doctors, pharmacies, and the patients themselves. Over the long-term, the pain medication lawsuits are likely to be very costly for manufacturers and distributors.

Criminal Litigation:

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to ask you to assume that there is significant drug related crime and we’re going to skip the standard (possession and distribution) opioid cases. Where I have noticed a substantial increase, both in the news and in requests for expert witnesses, is in criminal prosecutions of prescribing physicians and pharmacists.

As CNN described, “doctors are increasingly being held accountable — some even facing murder charges — when their patients overdose on opioid painkillers they prescribed.” The article further explains that the DEA took action against 88 doctors in 2011 and 479 doctors in 2016. One of the doctors described has been convicted of murder. I see at least one new story a week where a doctor, or pharmacist, is being held responsible for the excessive amounts of pain killers prescribed.

The numbers described in the article above, combined with a more aware public, lead me to believe we’ll see even larger numbers of DEA actions against doctors when the 2017 statistics are available.

Other Legal Issues:

As you can tell, I focused on the two areas that I’ve noticed the largest increase in visible litigation. We have processed many other expert witness referrals associated with opioid issues. Many overdose cases are resulting in medical malpractice actions as well as actions brought by medical boards for ethical violations by doctors.  We often see the requests for expert witnesses relating to emergency medicine physicians, toxicologists, pharmacy and pharmacology experts, and more.

Opioid litigation may very well be the “tobacco” litigation of our time.  As such, we are confident that we’ll have more to write about and discuss in the future.

1 2