I came across this interesting article on CBC this morning. I have been doing forensic work for more than 20 years and the issue of expert objectivity is an old one and it persists in spite of form 53. I don’t think it will go away anytime soon.
To me, the right way to handle this issue is to let the court system hire and pay experts, rather than insurance companies or lawyers on either side. The courts don’t have expectations that an expert’s opinion should favour one side or the other. This would relieve pressure on expert witnesses by ensuring their opinions are commissioned and paid for by an independent party, maintaining an arm’s-length relationship with the involved parties.
While this article focuses on medical expert witnesses and psychologists, vocational rehabilitation experts are certainly not immune to this problem. I think most of us, at one point or another, have been pressured to provide favourable opinions for a client.
For me, the takeaway is that, whatever your opinion is, it must be supported by evidence and must be within your scope of expertise. Also, diversifying your clientele is important to reduce the risk of being seen as potentially biased (I.e. doing only plaintiff or defence work, getting your referrals from mainly one source). Diversification also helps to protect the expert against pressure for favourable opinions.
I’d like to hear your thoughts and experiences: how have you addressed this issue in your practice? What changes do you think could reduce bias in expert opinions?
-
This topic was modified 2 days, 19 hours ago by 3986.
