Expert Witness Blog

Do we need an expert on experts, and what price a law degree?

Your Expert Witness blog logoThere were a couple of announcements recently regarding the instruction of expert witnesses that, unsurprisingly, seem to have largely evaded the national press. On 31 July Mr Justice Ryder's report into reforming the family courts was published. Among the proposals are an overhaul of the way experts are used in the courts and when they should be instructed at all. The purpose is, apparently, to make the courts more efficient (for that, probably read 'cheap') and more accessible.

The proposals had been widely flagged by MoJ ministers, as well as a determination to ensure experts in the court (particularly psychologists) are competent to influence decisions with such wide-ranging consequences for those involved.

Earlier a report into the competence of psychology expert witnesses carried out by the University of Central Lancashire had been welcomed by the British Psychological Society. More predictably, the Law Society was cautious about changes that involved more self-representation, a key plank of its on-going campaign against LASPO.

One MP who applauded moves to improve the quality of experts in family law cases was LibDem John Hemming, who has been tireless in his campaigning for changes. He had described the current system as "a scandal".

More recently, revised guidance for the instruction of expert witnesses in civil proceedings has been issued.

With all these changes, lawyers will probably have to instruct an 'expert in expert witnesses' to fathom out whether or not to instruct an expert. I don't think there is a category for that in the revamped Expert Witness Directory of this site.

A disarmingly honest article by Elie Mystal in the US blog Above the Law goes some way to explaining why the comments section of that publication sometimes reads like the letters page of a top-shelf magazine. It concerns advice to someone applying to law school in the US who has a low 'LSAT' score (Law School Admission Test – a bit like the common entrance exam for would-be lawyers). The advice was: "What should you do if you have a low LSAT score? DON'T apply to law school until you make it better."

The article states: "Getting into law school is not like getting into college. They're not looking for well-rounded individuals. They're not trying to get a class full of people with diverse interests. They don't care if you write your personal statement in crayon." Apparently, it's the exam mark that counts and nothing else.

Talking of responses to articles, a story in the Law Society Gazette about a graduate being forced to leave an unpaid internship to 'stack shelves' attracted plenty of comment from the publication's legal readership – some of it typed correctly. She won her judicial review against the decision on the basis that the DWP didn't explain to her in advance that such a thing could happen. The judge ruled, however, that her human rights hadn't been breached in that she had been forced into slavery. What was interesting about some of the comments was that the lawyerly correspondents seemed to assume she was a law graduate. Can't think why.

Chris Stokes