Source: http://quickreadbuzz.com/2018/09/19/the-expert-witness-exchange-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:51:50+00:00

Document:
There is no disputing the influence that expert witnesses have on litigation outcomes—this much we know for sure. Their expertise is often relied upon by the court in rendering decisions, weighing the opinions, methodology, and, indeed, the credibility of the competing expert witnesses involved for each party to the legal dispute. Considering what is at stake, it therefore behooves litigators to be exquisitely careful and circumspect in their expert witness retentions and due diligence practices. In this article, the authors discuss surprises that may arise and how those may affect the outcome of litigation.
There is no disputing the influence that expert witnesses have on litigation outcomes—this much we know for sure. Their expertise is often relied upon by the court in rendering decisions, weighing the opinions, methodology, and, indeed, the credibility of the competing expert witnesses involved for each party to the legal dispute. Considering what is at stake, it therefore behooves litigators to be exquisitely careful and circumspect in their expert witness retentions and due diligence practices. Perhaps, due to the competitive nature of expert witness work, human nature, or the lack of a universal, standardized credentialing body to track the credentials, background, or relevant employment experience of those who elect to participate in the judicial process as expert witnesses, there exists a reoccurrence of instances where some have been caught misrepresenting their licensure, academic credentials, certifications, and work history. In some instances, the circumstances are far more benign, yet still cause difficulties and considerable angst.
For example, licenses and certifications may have been surrendered or lapsed. Even if aware, an expert witness may not deem it a material matter to bring to the attention of retaining counsel. Whether arising from benign oversight or purposeful deceit, such revelations, rooted in the lack of a verification mechanism, may be devastating in all forms of litigation, presenting opposing attorneys a set of circumstances that may be leveraged for use at trial or in an effort to impose more favorable settlement terms. It is the Expert Witness Validation Committee’s view that an expert witness’s misrepresentation of credentials, deliberate or otherwise, is clearly harmful to the adversarial system of justice, in that it: adversely impacts the interests of the parties involved; harms attorney client relations; and erodes confidence in the judicial system itself.
Unfortunately, due to the many burdens which attorneys must tend to throughout the process of litigation, the detail of expert witness credential and background verification is often overlooked. Far too often, retaining attorneys and even opposing legal counsel will make a “leap of faith”, and assume that all material information presented on an expert’s curriculum vitae (CV) is accurate. These kinds of presumptive oversights are perilous, and there exists an entire body of cases where experts across scientific and forensic disciplines have been caught misrepresenting and embellishing their licenses, certifications, academic credentials, work history, and the like, wreaking veritable havoc on case outcomes.
Mr. Gering, of course, was not the first expert to have been caught misrepresenting credentials. Unfortunately, this has been a reoccurring problem for many years. In a past criminal case, Drake v. Portuondo, a psychology expert was caught not only falsifying his extensive work experience, but also completely fabricating his testimony surrounding a fictional syndrome that he had invented to establish the defendant’s intent in murdering his two classmates.5 Years after his opportunities for appeal had been exhausted, the defendant discovered through his own research in prison that: the expert witness had never performed criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner’s Office; was never an adjunct professor at Northern Michigan University; and had never testified as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding during the time period that he claimed; all of which the expert had listed as experience on his personal CV.
Taking a hard look at the challenge presented, it is self-evident that both the attorney and expert witness communities have a common interest in minimizing the risks of false and exaggerated credentials being proffered. The introduction of a mechanism for expert credential verification, including a validated expert registry to be updated annually and/or upon request, is a sensible development that has been a long time coming. The drive behind the Expert Witness Validation Badge™ effort is to provide an enhanced level of assurance that experts who bear the digital Badge are a valid participant in the judicial process.
The Expert Witness Validation Badge™ is one way in which Expert Witness Exchange is working to benefit attorneys, expert witnesses, and the judiciary process. A full listing of the requirements, limitations, and conditions of the Expert Witness Validation Badge™ can be found on www.expertwitnessexchange.com.
1 Mr. Gering does, evidently, hold a credential as a certified licensing professional (CLP) per CLP’s website registry for the excellent qualitative credential which they do offer in this field; but inferentially, did not verify Mr. Gering’s educational background.
2 DePuy Synthes Products, LLC v. Globus Med., Inc., No. CA 11-652-LPS, 2013 WL 1897833, at *1 (D. Del. May 7, 2013).
3 Synygy, Inc. v. ZS Associates, Inc., No. CIV.A. 07- 3536, 2013 WL 3716518, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2013).
4 U.S. ex rel. Suter v. Nat’l Rehab Partners, Inc., No. 03-15-S-BLW, 2006 WL 3531647, at *1 (Dec 6, 2006).
5 Drake v. Portuondo, 321 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2003).
6 State v. Plude, 2008 WI 58, ¶ 23, 310 Wis. 2d 28, 39, 750 N.W.2d 42, 48.
7 In re Vioxx Products, 489 F. Supp. 2d 587, 591-92 (E.D. La. 2007).
8 Snyder v. Foote, 822 P.2d 1353 (Alaska 1991).
9 Hamilton v. Negi, No. 09-CV-0664, 2012 WL 1067857, at *3 (W.D. La. Mar. 15, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A. 09-860, 2012 WL 1067897 (W.D. La. Mar. 29, 2012).
10 Kulbicki v. State, 207 Md. App. 412, 53 A.3d 361 (2012) rev’d, 440 Md. 33, 99 A.3d 730 (2014).
Dr. Paul Powers served as the chair of the Expert Witness Validation Committee, an advisory panel established by the Expert Witness Exchange, LLC., a Delaware for-profit corporation.
Dr. Powers can be contacted at (860) 206-5012 or by e-mail to powers@Chirocredit.com.
Samuel Lisi attended University of Connecticut School of Law, where he earned his juris doctorate degree in the spring of 2016. He also served as secretary to the Expert Witness Validation Committee.
Mr. Lisi can be contacted at samuelanthonylisi@gmail.com.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.