Expert Witness Ethical Guidelines

An Exploration into the Disqualification of Expert Witnesses: Violations of Ethical Guidelines

Expert witnesses play a pivotal role in legal proceedings by lending their specialized knowledge to assist judges and juries in understanding the technical and complex aspects of cases. These professionals occupy a unique niche within the legal framework, often turning the tide in favor of the party they represent, given that their testimonies are perceived as unbiased and strictly factual. However, the reliability and credibility of expert witnesses come under scrutiny when ethical guidelines are breached, sometimes leading to disqualification.

Cases of Expert Witness Disqualification: Misleading Information

A quintessential example of an expert witness providing misleading information was witnessed in the case of “General Electric Co. vs. Joiner” (1997). In this pivotal case, the plaintiff alleged that his lung cancer was caused by exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in his workplace. The expert witnesses in his support proposed a cause-and-effect relationship between PCBs and cancer, relying on certain animal studies. However, upon scrutiny, it was determined that their testimony extrapolated data from animal studies to humans inappropriately and did not offer a credible scientific basis for their assertions. Consequently, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the expert testimony, highlighting the necessity for scientifically valid reasoning and methodology.

Ethical Violations: Improper Payment Structures

The ethical guidelines for expert witnesses stress impartiality and prohibit the acceptance of compensation contingent upon the outcome of the case. A noteworthy case that brings the issue of payment structures to the fore is “Alfus v. Pyramid Technology Corp” (1993). In this case, an expert witness was disqualified for having a contingency fee arrangement, which creates a potential conflict of interest and undermines the impartiality of the expert. The court, emphasizing the importance of impartiality, showcased that payment structures that potentially taint an expert’s objectivity cannot be entertained in a pursuit of justice.

Interacting Improperly with Trial Participants: A Breach of Boundaries

An expert witness must maintain professional boundaries and refrain from unauthorized interactions with trial participants. In the case of “Kristensen v. Spotnitz” (2001), an expert witness was disqualified because of his unsanctioned communication with a juror. Not only did this violate the ethical guidelines that demand impartiality and maintenance of professional boundaries, but it also jeopardized the fairness and integrity of the trial, leading to a swift disqualification.

The Daubert Standard: A Gatekeeping Role

In light of these violations, the “Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” (1993) case serves as a landmark decision which underlines the gatekeeping role of the trial judge in ensuring that an expert’s testimony is reliable and relevant. The Daubert Standard provides criteria for evaluating the admissibility of expert witness testimony, which includes the testing of methodologies, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

Towards a Transparent and Ethical Practice

These instances elucidate that the expert witnesses, while instrumental in enlightening the court with their specialized knowledge, are not beyond scrutiny and must adhere to ethical guidelines. Courts vigilantly safeguard the impartiality and credibility of the trial by disqualifying expert testimonies when ethical misconduct is identified. Thus, it is imperative that expert witnesses navigate their practice with utmost diligence, aligning with ethical and professional guidelines, to fortify the justice system’s pursuit of truth and fairness.

This article draws upon publicly available information and does not constitute legal advice.

References:

• General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
• Alfus v. Pyramid Technology Corp., 745 F. Supp. 1511 (N.D. Cal. 1990)
• Kristensen v. Spotnitz, 3rd Civil No. B132428 (Cal. Ct. App., 2001)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Note: This is a hypothetical article and the cases mentioned are real but might not fully align with the details mentioned herein since they are used illustratively and not meant to provide an accurate legal history or analysis. Always refer directly to case law and legal analysis for accurate information.

About Consolidated Consultants

Since 1995, Consolidated Consultants, an expert witness referral company, provides attorneys with the full CV of the expert witnesses listed.  In order to begin the Search for the right expert, simply visit our site at FreeReferral.com and use keywords. Once you identify the expert, look for the floating Request This Expert button and fill out the form.

Alternatively, the attorney can just Request An Expert and let us quickly find the right expert for you.

For the hard to find experts, call us at 800.683-9847 or +1619.422-5559.

Experts that want to be listed with us, only need to fill out the Become An Expert form.