However, at a discussion arranged by the British Academy of Experts, it became abundantly clear why in many cases this practice is often unproductive. Before they meet, they are frequently instructed that they should not agree anything. Alternatively, they are told that anything they agree must be referred back for ratification to the lawyers acting on behalf of the client instructing them. Despite the judge's direction, the decision as to what to agree is then a matter not for the experts but for the lawyers. Exchange of experts' reports 10.
Rules of court require experts' reports to be exchanged.
However, even this course is not universally approved. Men of outstanding eminence in their field. The disclosure of expert reports, which originally seemed eminently sensible, has degenerated into a costly second tier of written advocacy. Costs of experts have probably risen faster than any other element of litigation costs in the last 20 years. This deplorable development has been unwittingly encouraged by a generation of judges who want to pre-read experts' reports before coming into court, and by practice directions stipulating that the reports be lodged in court to enable them to do so.