[CLC-Discussion] Informal poll on expert witnesses

Wed Sep 11 16:10:28 PDT 2019

that brits use one court appointed expert and no jury - generally.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[http://49c594a36231a5de5d18-8eb9f59416b970d8a7e51808cff17589.r5.cf2.rackcdn.com/CSK%20LOGO_Middle_1.png]<https://www.csklegal.com/>

[http://49c594a36231a5de5d18-8eb9f59416b970d8a7e51808cff17589.r5.cf2.rackcdn.com/CSK_name_Small.png]<https://https://www.csklegal.com/>

www.csklegal.com<http://www.csklegal.com>

[http://49c594a36231a5de5d18-8eb9f59416b970d8a7e51808cff17589.r5.cf2.rackcdn.com/Best%20Lawyers%202019%20Newest_Small.png]

George R. Truitt
Partner

Tel: 305-350-5331 | Fax: 305-373-2294

George.Truitt at csklegal.com<mailto:George.Truitt at csklegal.com>

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400<https://maps.google.com/maps?q=9150%20S%20Dadeland%20Blvd%2C%20Suite%201400%20miami%2Cfl%2033156&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cWc,pv.xjs.s.en_US.v-r5CthikH8.O&biw=792&bih=484&wrapid=tlif138626915620421&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl>
Miami, Florida 33156<https://maps.google.com/maps?q=9150%20S%20Dadeland%20Blvd%2C%20Suite%201400%20miami%2Cfl%2033156&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.57155469,d.cWc,pv.xjs.s.en_US.v-r5CthikH8.O&biw=792&bih=484&wrapid=tlif138626915620421&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl>

<https://www.facebook.com/csklegal>     [http://49c594a36231a5de5d18-8eb9f59416b970d8a7e51808cff17589.r5.cf2.rackcdn.com/IN.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/authwall?trk=ripf&trkInfo=AQEWAjG4CT1nfgAAAWsfGTh4AYcxDfs_nl78Fiwf-OyQwh0QPGrxseQs497NeQj2yd9jiOWYvOMaRkRZdo91RcE1VxGdADyJAmbKXQNY3sQuwoqA_bhv_PfhQZWabJ7u8QevAmU=&originalReferer=https://www.google.com/&sessionRedirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fcole-scott-%26-kissane-p-a->      [http://49c594a36231a5de5d18-8eb9f59416b970d8a7e51808cff17589.r5.cf2.rackcdn.com/IG.png] <https://www.instagram.com/csklegal/>      [https://51f515a99e32222c0eed-8eb9f59416b970d8a7e51808cff17589.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/TW_Small.png] <https://twitter.com/CSKLegal?lang=en>

[cid:imagee362ee.JPG at 12920014.459b6280]

[cid:image833cae.PNG at ba108e38.40bb0af2]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:00 PM -0400, "David C. Agee, Esq." <dagee at reidagee.com<mailto:dagee at reidagee.com>> wrote:

I think it puts too much power in the hands of the judiciary and not enough in the hands of the parties.

David C. Agee, Esquire

REID & AGEE, PLLC
3633 26th Street West
Bradenton, FL 34205
Tel 941.756.8791
Fax 941.755.7311

**********Ask us about Real Estate and Estate Planning**************

The information transmitted in this email, including any attachments, is from Reid & Agee, PLLC and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. This electronic information is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender via telephone at (941) 756-8791 or reply email and delete the email and any attachments from any computer. Thank You.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Hans Peter Haahr" <Hans at hhlegal.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 6:37pm
To: "Fred Barnes" <fred at fcbarneslaw.com>
Cc: "clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org" <clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Informal poll on expert witnesses

We all know how neutral the “Neutral Evaluation” program is under 627. I think it’s a noble idea but impossible in practical terms

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 11, 2019, at 6:31 PM, Fred Barnes <fred at fcbarneslaw.com<mailto:fred at fcbarneslaw.com>> wrote:

Thinking further about the idea, if there is only one expert, and if the expert’s opinions turn out to be in line with one party’s position, how could the other party stand a chance in court?  The expert’s opinions would essentially be dispositive of the case?

Frederick C. Barnes, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 865-9200
www.fcbarneslaw.com<http://www.fcbarneslaw.com/>
<image001.png>

From: Fred Barnes [mailto:fred at fcbarneslaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 6:16 PM
To: 'lan at lwwhiteattorney.com<mailto:lan at lwwhiteattorney.com>'; 'Timothy R. Moorhead'
Cc: 'clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>'
Subject: RE: [CLC-Discussion] Informal poll on expert witnesses

I also like the idea.  It could be a positive and transformative change.  I concur that  a lot of details would have to be ironed out, not only as to selection of the expert but also, for example, how to determine in advance exactly what facts the expert will be given and exactly what issues on which the expert will be tasked to give opinions.

Is the idea to limit it to construction litigation?  How would that be done?  Are we talking about statutory or procedural rules changes?  Or the creation of a protocol that parties in a constructing dispute could agree to early on in a litigation?

Frederick C. Barnes, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 865-9200
www.fcbarneslaw.com<http://www.fcbarneslaw.com/>
<image001.png>

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of lan at lwwhiteattorney.com<mailto:lan at lwwhiteattorney.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:02 AM
To: 'Timothy R. Moorhead'
Cc: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Informal poll on expert witnesses

Before I respond to the question, please excuse a brief diatribe. Even worse (at least from my perspective) is the situation in arbitrations. I am privileged to serve as a AAA construction and commercial arbitrator, and experts are common. To recite what we all know, experts aren't fact witnesses. They are testifying about their opinions, which can even be based on hearsay which would be in itself inadmissible so long as it is the type of thing on which experts rely. The touchstone for all of this is whether it will assist the trier of fact. You would be disturbed at how often "expert" testimony is so ridiculously overstated the arbitrators wind up almost insulted that anyone thinks they might believe that nonsense. Don't misunderstand. I've been in some cases where the experts were great teachers about the Florida Building Codes, or construction related issues, or other technical issues, and the experts were truly helpful. Unfortunately, I've been in others where the testimony is so obviously biased it is simply a waste of everyone's time.

End of monologue. To respond to your question, I like the idea. I have one reservation. Because judge's are supposed to be neutral, letting them pick a name unilaterally might be viewed as favoring one side or the other (however inadvertent ). We arbitrators are always painfully aware that one of the few grounds under either the Federal Arbitration Act or the Revised Florida Arbitration Code for vacating an arbitral award is bias. What about a tweak. Have the parties agree on the name, or if they can't, they agree on three names and the trier of fact picks one. If they don't even do that, then the court issues an order describing the expert needed and some third person (the Clerk of the Court?) appoints the expert.

How does one go about such a rule change?

Langfred W. White, Esq.
Board Certified in Construction Law
Fellow of the Construction Lawyers
Society of America

     <image002.png>     <image003.png>   <image004.jpg>

Law Offices of Langfred W. White, PA
P. O. Box 8334
Clearwater, FL 33758-8334
Phone: (727) 422-5064
email: lan at lwwhiteattorney.com<mailto:lan at lwwhiteattorney.com>

This electronic message is confidential and may be subject to an attorney-client privilege or an attorney work product privilege, or may otherwise be exempt from discovery under applicable federal and state law.  It is intended for use only by the named addressee.  If you receive this in error or are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify the sender via return e-mail or telephone at (727) 422-5064.  Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, please be advised this message, and any advice contained in it, is not intended to be used and may not be used to avoid any tax penalties that may be imposed on you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Timothy R. Moorhead
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:16 PM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] Informal poll on expert witnesses

Question for the group.  Please respond only to me to avoid clogging everyone’s email as I have just done.

The last time I tried a jury trial with expert witnesses, the jurors universally commented that they simply ignored the expert witnesses of both sides.  The comment was that they figured that any lawyer could find an expert to say whatever they wanted.  Unfortunately, there is probably a lot of truth to that comment.  In the olden days when we took notes on stone tablets, we law students were taught that experts testify as a “friend of the court” the idea was that the Court would be in need of some expert guidance.

So, would there be any support for a rule change that would ban party sponsored experts from testifying?

Instead, a party would petition the Court to appoint an expert who would then be paid through the Court equally by all parties.  The expert would then be testifying as a truly neutral witness.  The experts would go through a vetting process to become certified as an expert in any particular field and much like a list of mediators, a list would be available to the Courts.  The parties either agree on an expert who is then approached by the Court, or the Court selects its own expert.

This makes the expert testimony much more reliable and the qualification of the expert has been handled ahead of time.  No more Daubert challenges, the Court has predetermined who is and who is not a reliable expert.  The Court decides whether to allow the expert to present his testimony or simple advise the Court with regard to any questions the Court may have.

The Parties would be free to engage their own consulting experts to assist with questioning, etc., but no testimony from them.

Thanks for reading.  What do you think?

[Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A.]<http://www.wfmblaw.com/>

Timothy R. Moorhead, Esq.

Board Certified in Construction Law

505 Maitland Ave. Suite 1000 | Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

T: (407) 425-0234<tel:(407)425-0234> | F: (407) 425-0260<tel:(407)425-0260>

 Email<mailto:tmoorhead at wfmblaw.com> |  Website<http://www.wfmblaw.com> | vCard<http://www.wfmblaw.com/vcard/vcard.php?name_first=Timothy%20R.&name_last=Moorhead>

[http://www.martindale.com/marketyourfirm/mhratings/img/av2017-rating-full.png]<http://www.lawyers.com/altamonte-springs/florida/timothy-russell-moorhead-823614-a/?utm_source=ratingverification&utm_medium=referral>

This message and its attachments are confidential. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please destroy it and notify me immediately. No portion of this message is intended to provide any tax-related advice.

_______________________________________________
CLC-Discussion mailing list
CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:CLC-Discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion<http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion>

Confidentiality Notice: This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521. It is legally privileged (including attachments) and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us so that we may take the appropriate action and avoid troubling you further. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190911/4617f52b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: imagee362ee.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3260 bytes
Desc: imagee362ee.JPG
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190911/4617f52b/imagee362ee-0001.JPG>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image833cae.PNG
Type: image/png
Size: 10266 bytes
Desc: image833cae.PNG
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20190911/4617f52b/image833cae-0001.PNG>