In many areas of litigation, expert witnesses provide crucial testimony about all sorts of things. Issues addressed by experts include the medical condition of a party, the complex financial transactions of an investment scheme, the mental capacity or sanity of an accused, and the safety of a product.

In the American system, experts are hired by either party, and they testify for the party that hires them. In many other judicial systems, experts are hired to advise the court and do not work for either party.

Some view the American system as a horrible practice. The criticism is that experts become little more than information prostitutes who sell themselves to the highest bidder. I don’t subscribe to this view, for what it’s worth.  My take is that an expert who can’t be objective is nearly worthless. Jurors look to us for credibility. I lose that credibility if my expert cannot take a principled approach to testimony.

All this is a long way around to this New York Times article about expert hot tubbing.  In expert hot tubbing, the experts appear at trial together and address the issues jointly. They even ask questions of each other and discuss the case jointly in front of the trier of fact.  The article claims that the practice originated in Australia.  It’s an interesting thought, though I have to wonder whether it’s the panacea suggested by its advocates.   After all, if an expert truly lacks scruples he or she isn’t going to change that point of view by appearing at trial with the opposing expert.

Even so, it’s an interesting view of the world. For those who geek out on the details of the civil justice system, it’s well worth the read.

David Sugerman