Discussion: View Thread

I have been practicing for over 20 years. I have noticed aggressive "third-party expert" companies that will require an expert witness to sign their agreements to commence work. It is a personal decision whether or not to sign an agreement. My greatest concern is for newer practitioners in our profession to consider the agreements closely. Please be careful.

A more recent agreement that I observed in the fine print, upon signing, would agree to give said party permission to obtain upon request all of the business books (not even related to the case retained) whenever they want access. Some defer liability and then nothing covers the expert, the right of expert withdrawal (ethical violations), if there is sickness or such. In one agreement, it read that by signing the agreement, the expert agrees to not communicate with the Attorney. 

In another situation, a municipality stated that our fee schedule was signed and agreed, then a second person signed it and, then the City Attorney would sign and return back. Instead, our fee schedule was omitted. The municipality switched and added their engagement with a four-page agreement with no guarantee of payments with auditing as a couple of examples and, requested a signature to commence. We chose not to sign. Again it is a personal decision.

By No way is my discussion promoting boycotting third parties or any entity.

What have your experiences been, if any?   

Jeff Kiel, Ph.D., CRC, CCM, CVE, FVE, CEASE, CLCP, ABVE/D

Ph.D. Psychology - Industrial Organizational Psychology

Vocational Solutions, LLC

Owner

San Antonio, TX

------------------------------
Jeffrey Kiel
CEO
vocexpertkiel@vocsolutions.net
San Antonio, TX United States
------------------------------

HI, Michele.

Oh, yes, to be burned as a "newbie," and even later on, I would add.   This discussion regarding being retained, whether by a 3rd party, or even directly, is one of the listserv's most valuable.  In spite of an oft-times tendency to be trusting of others, litigation is one of those areas in which there can be little if much trust at all.   

As we know, there is no such thing as a universally standard retainer, either by the expert or the payor, complete with the right language and inclusive of ALL parts of retainer-related topics.  Our listserv here has entertained the topic in the past, and many have offered partial or full language of what is in their expert retainer.   I suspect that the listsev' library may have a good history of such too.

As to the objectivity of the expert, that standard does not go away whether from 1st or 3rd party referrals, and regardless of where the retainer originates.  An objectivity statement may readily be part of anyone's retainer and may have been helpful in the experience(s) about which you allude.   Perhaps as an aside, but I really don't think so, your language used here of being hired "on the insurance side" is neither as explanatory nor as precise as if described as "by" and not "on" the insurance side.  "By" would also be much less compromising when confronted with allegations of bias, as well.  

I am sorry for the bad experience and taste that is left after being burned.   However, it is not a really a question of "3rd Party" referral sources at all.  1st party may be just as egregious.   True, one may choose which one(s,) if any, from which to accept referrals but for me, the retainer remains the same, and I am "bound" to provide my objective opinion only to the one signing the retainer, as its payor.   All other parties can go pound sand, and nothing prohibits me from adding language (regarding objectivity, etc.) to their retainer before I sign it.  Or refuse to be so enjoined.

BTW, all of my referrals from 3rd parties over the span of my career have worked out well, and many of them are not one "one-sided" as part of their company formation.  Ongoingly, good luck!   

(I would share a copy of my retainer language with you (fees excluded) if you may privately that.) 

Bob Paré 

Several times over the years i have been approached and ended up just saying "no" for this or that reason in relation to reading the agreements of services. One comes to mind. A rush of marketing, compliments and immediate need to meet along with promise of mega-referrals. All I would have to do is give them the names of all of the hundreds of attorneys I have ever worked with and agree to run it by/ask them in advance for their approval prior to ever taking a case from any of my prior/current retaining sources again. The contact could not quite get the concept that I, and I assume most good experts, routinely take cases from both "sides" and have been retained and opposing expert to same firm/attorney.....And that such is not a conflict. My response to that was to say the expectation was unrealistic, unprofessional and rather naive. i told them that you would need to be pretty desperate to agree to such terms.

My feeling is that the attorneys who use such services are likely forced to do so, that most good attorneys with good cases don't use them, and that the services are likely populated by lightweight experts who do not know what they are getting into or those comfortable with always being on one side (technicians, not experts). Good attorneys with good cases care deeply about the expert they select and tirelessly vet them. I have often been told by defense something like "we know it's bad, we just want to know how bad it is. We know you are routinely used and respected by both sides and want you to tell it like it really is". Same goes for good plaintiff attorneys. They want good experts able to tell them obvious and subtle problems with their cases, not to spin it and bend it and ignore stuff a juror with a limited education will see through. 

it can be enticing as a hungry new expert to bite. I would resist the urge. Build a book of business as balanced as possible. In decade or so if you are any good at this thing we do, you may well have too much to do.