Pro Bono Expert Witness
GB
there's a need. There's a recent case that has just come up which I am
considering doing on a pro bono basis, but where I am pretty sure that the
claimant is going to win his case, in which case the defendants can meet his
costs.
What I would really like to do is get my fees paid if the claimant wins, but
without the claimant having the worry about my fees if he doesn't win. Of
course, that sounds like a contingency fee basis, which is an absolute no-no
for expert witnesses. I can, of course, just take this on the chin and do
the work on a pro bono basis, but that seems a bit of a shame if the
defendant can easily afford to pay my costs. Is there any way of structuring
this so as to achieve the desired result?
Don Aitken
wrote:
I think the only way to do this is to treat the case as a normal paid
one, and invoice for your usual fee. You don't have to enforce payment
if he loses.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
fjm...@gmail.com
>
> What I would really like to do is get my fees paid if the claimant wins, but
> without the claimant having the worry about my fees if he doesn't win. Of
> course, that sounds like a contingency fee basis, which is an absolute no-no
> for expert witnesses. I can, of course, just take this on the chin and do
> the work on a pro bono basis, but that seems a bit of a shame if the
> defendant can easily afford to pay my costs. Is there any way of structuring
> this so as to achieve the desired result?
Why is a conditional (not contingency in our parlance) fee a no-no?
Its not a no-no for barristers or solicitors and I don't think there
is a rule of law against it - IIRC one of the later Factortame cases
(somewhere between 9 and 11) had a conditional fee cap on the expert's
fees.
The Claimant then might be able to recover your fees in the award of
costs (assuming there is one).
Francis
The Todal
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:475435c5$0$13933$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The arrangement you suggest would compromise your independence and
impartiality as an expert witness as required by Part 35 of the CPR
(assuming it's a civil case).
The answer is probably to get the claimant to find a good solicitor who can
run the case on a CFA and insure your fees as one of the disbursements.
The Todal
"fj...@yahoo.co.uk" <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aaabe096-8328-43ac...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Dec, 17:10, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> What I would really like to do is get my fees paid if the claimant wins,
>> but
>> without the claimant having the worry about my fees if he doesn't win. Of
>> course, that sounds like a contingency fee basis, which is an absolute
>> no-no
>> for expert witnesses. I can, of course, just take this on the chin and do
>> the work on a pro bono basis, but that seems a bit of a shame if the
>> defendant can easily afford to pay my costs. Is there any way of
>> structuring
>> this so as to achieve the desired result?
>
> Why is a conditional (not contingency in our parlance) fee a no-no?
I'm not sure if there is case law on the subject, as such, but this is the
official protocol for experts published by the Civil Justice Council:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/form_section_images/practice_directions/pd35_pdf_eps/pd35_prot.pdf
"Payments contingent upon the nature of the expert evidence given in legal
proceedings, or upon the outcome of a case, must not be offered or accepted.
To do so would contravene experts' overriding duty to the court and
compromise their duty of independence".
bealoid
news:475435c5$0$13933$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
[snip]
> an absolute no-no for expert witnesses.
[snip]
> Is there any way of structuring this so as to achieve the
> desired result?
You say that it's "an absolute no-no", but you want to do it anyway? I'm
not sure what you're asking; "is this an aboslute no-no?" or "this is a no-
no but how do I get round the rules?"
fjm...@gmail.com
>
> I'm not sure if there is case law on the subject, as such, but this is the
There is case law on the subject: quite a detailed discussion can be
found in
R (Factortame) v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWCA Civ 932
which establishes that only in exceptional cases should an expert act
on a contingency fee basis. I had not remembered that the forensic
accountants in the case hired independent expert subcontractors, which
was one factor that made the Court of Appeal happier about the
arrangement (though they pointed out that the Respondent's experts
were government employees etc).
> official protocol for experts published by the Civil Justice Council:http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/form_section_i...
>
> "Payments contingent upon the nature of the expert evidence given in legal
> proceedings, or upon the outcome of a case, must not be offered or accepted.
> To do so would contravene experts' overriding duty to the court and
> compromise their duty of independence".
... is very slightly modified by Factortame, but not in the OP's case.
Francis
Tommo
>
> news:aaabe096-8328-43ac...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 3 Dec, 17:10, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> What I would really like to do is get my fees paid if the claimant wins,
> >> but
> >> without the claimant having the worry about my fees if he doesn't win. Of
> >> course, that sounds like a contingency fee basis, which is an absolute
> >> no-no
> >> for expert witnesses. I can, of course, just take this on the chin and do
> >> the work on a pro bono basis, but that seems a bit of a shame if the
> >> defendant can easily afford to pay my costs. Is there any way of
> >> structuring
> >> this so as to achieve the desired result?
>
> > Why is a conditional (not contingency in our parlance) fee a no-no?
>
> I'm not sure if there is case law on the subject, as such, but this is the
>
> "Payments contingent upon the nature of the expert evidence given in legal
> proceedings, or upon the outcome of a case, must not be offered or accepted.
> To do so would contravene experts' overriding duty to the court and
> compromise their duty of independence".
Wasn't there also a case (poss to do with Factortame) in which the
expert took a % of the winnings as funding for his fees. The Court
considered whether this was a champertous arrangement and therefore
unlawful. The decision IIUC was that although it looked iffy, it was
acceptable because it was the only way in which the party could bring
his case (b/c he couldn't afford the expert's fees otherwise).
masoodsae...@gmail.com
I would like to know what field you give expert evidence in as I need a report on the psychological effect on a claimant and also would you travel to Birmingham?