At the recent 2018 Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference, the results of the Annual Expert Witness Survey in Collaboration with The Times were published. The total number of respondents - over a varied range of topics - was 607 and of those surveyed, 81% of the experts are mainly instructed in civil cases.

In answer to some questions posed in the survey –

• 10% of the experts surveyed indicated that they are mainly instructed in family cases and the steep decline in the use of experts in these cases may be attributed to the introduction of the Family Procedure Rules in January 2013.
• On the subject of legal aid cases, the expert witnesses who accept or do not accept legal aid cases were evenly split. Despite the ability of everyone to be able to resolve their legal issues as being vital to a just society, experts are not obliged to accept legal aid cases. There have been significant cuts to fees for legal aid work over the past few years.
• 80% of the experts surveyed do not think that many parts of their expert witness work could be done using Artificial Intelligence (AI) reducing the need for full reports as it exists now. AI-based technological solutions have been developed to assist with the e-disclosure process.

Lord Chief Justice says,

“The ability of computers to analyse vast quantities of material to enable accurate predictions in many areas of human activity is one of the most exciting developments of the age.”

The majority of the experts surveyed do not believe that the increased use of IT in courts will lead to the decline, or the end, of expert witnesses giving evidence.

• 43% of the experts surveyed indicated that they have come across an expert they consider to be a ‘hired gun’. Pressure from instructing parties will be one of the reasons that could lead an expert to be a hired gun. Lord Woolf made it clear in the Civil Procedure Rules 1999 that an expert’s duty is to the court not the side paying. In the last 12 months, 25% of the experts surveyed stated that they have been asked - or felt pressurised by an instructing party - to change their report in a way that damages their impartiality. 75% of the experts surveyed consider that professional bodies should play a more active role in situations where experts are incompetent or behave as a hired gun. Almost 50% of the experts surveyed have come across experts who profess expertise in an area in which they are not qualified or does not warrant expertise.
• 86% of the experts surveyed do not consider that fake news has affected the evidence experts give.
• 60% of the experts surveyed have concerns that courts find it hard to distinguish the truth between conflicting opinions. Experts already have to confirm in their reports that they are true and they have to swear under oath in court to tell the truth but difficulties arise when two experts have differing opinions.
• 65% of experts consider that courts struggle to understand the evidence of experts as it becomes more complex. The explanation needs to be in clear language that a non-expert can understand and act upon. Experts should make sure that their reports are clear and fit for purpose.
• Almost 50% of the experts surveyed indicated that the number of instructions received was at the same level, but 37% said they had increased.
• 80% of the respondents indicated that their rates remain the same as last year, with 32% of the experts stating that have considered stopping their work as an expert witness in the last 12 months. One of the main reasons mentioned by the experts is the expert’s fees.