EWJ 60 April 2025 web - Journal - Page 71
or employ assistants to help navigate data rooms,
interpret industry-specific nuances and validate findings. This team effort behind the scenes is rarely visible in court but is crucial to delivering credible
testimony.
As we mentioned in Part I of this series of articles, the
seemingly narrow issue of ‘market practice’ is in fact a
very broad definition and requires experts to opine
on a wide range of issues, at times extremely
specialised.
The reality is that no expert operates in isolation.
Whether through formal teams or informal support
networks, collaboration is a cornerstone of effective
expert testimony. Acknowledging this fact could lead
to more transparent and effective practices in the
courtroom.
Providing experts with a narrower scope might lead to
several advantages:
Cross-Examination Challenges
Cross-examination is arguably the most demanding
aspect of being an expert witness. When a single individual is tasked with defending their analysis across
multiple disciplines, the risk of vulnerability increases.
Opposing counsel often aims to exploit any perceived
weaknesses in the expert’s knowledge, even if those
weaknesses are outside the scope of their primary
expertise.
attention to specific areas, providing more reliable and
impactful opinions.
l Cost Efficiency: By limiting the questions an expert
must address, legal teams can streamline the preparation process for court and reduce fees.
l Enhanced Precision: Experts can devote their full
l Improved Clarity for the Court: A focused mandate
results in clearer, more comprehensible testimony,
which is particularly valuable in highly technical cases.
Legal teams and courts should collaborate to ensure
that expert instructions are precise, targeted, and
aligned with the case’s critical issues.
Allowing a team of experts to share this burden could
result in more balanced and thorough examinations.
Furthermore, as is the case where junior counsel are
often given opportunities to partake in narrow crossexaminations during large trials, the new wave of experts could also gain invaluable experience in the
witness-box in order to develop and hone their skills.
The Risks of Over-Elaboration
Experts, particularly in complex cases, may feel
tempted to over-elaborate their opinions, or stray into
factual evidence for which their opinions are not required. This inclination often stems from a desire to
appear thorough and authoritative. However, excessive detail can backfire and lead to the following:
Conclusion: A Case for Evolving Practices
The complexities of modern financial litigation may
require a re-evaluation of how expertise is presented
and utilised in court. While the traditional model of a
single expert has its merits, it is increasingly clear that
this approach may be insufficient for large-scale trials.
l Frustration for the Court: Judges and counsel may
struggle to discern the key points amidst a combination of factual evidence and tangential analysis.
l Increased Vulnerability of the Expert: Overly
expansive opinions straying from the specific issues
provides an opportunity for opposing counsel to find
and exploit inconsistencies in cross examination.
The integration of expert teams, combined with transparent collaboration and defined roles, offers a compelling alternative. Such practices not only ensure
comprehensive coverage of complex issues but also
enhance the credibility and reliability of expert
testimony.
l Higher Costs: Preparing and defending overly
broad opinions is time-consuming, resource intensive
and increasingly expensive.
Experts should focus on delivering concise, relevant,
and well-supported analyses. Their role is not to overwhelm but to illuminate the court on issues that truly
matter. Furthermore, clients should not be ‘priced
out’ of having access to expert opinions therefore the
scope of those opinions should be limited as much as
possible.
Part II
Expert Witness Case Study: Refining the Role of
Experts in Complex Litigation
In the second part of the Objectivus review of expert
witness practices, we turn our focus to the scope of expert evidence, its timing, and its presentation in court.
Whilst financial expert witnesses bring significant
value to complex litigation, overly broad mandates
and suboptimal presentation can undermine their
effectiveness.
Timing of Expert Evidence: Should It be Presented
Earlier?
Traditionally, expert evidence is presented after the
court has heard the factual case and witness evidence.
While this sequencing aligns with the principle that
experts build on established facts, we believe it raises
practical questions. By the time expert testimony is introduced, particularly in long, complex trials, both
counsel’s and the Judge’s knowledge of the issues will
probably already have evolved significantly over the
course of the trial. This suggests that the expert evidence could potentially have less impact and the expert reports may also be heavily redacted at this stage
of proceedings.
The Problem with Overly Broad Mandates
A recurring challenge in financial litigation is the wide
scope often given to experts. Unlike medical experts,
who are typically tasked with answering narrow, welldefined questions, financial experts are frequently expected to address a sprawling array of issues. This
breadth of responsibility can dilute an expert’s focus
away from their areas of real expertise, as well as lead
to inflated costs, both of which end up complicating
the task of assisting the court.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
69
APRIL 2025
