Are there side jobs that diminish your credibility? 5

[casseopeia]

The reason I ask is that I recently testified as an expert in court. I had been talking with the attorney outside of the courtroom just prior to my testimony about what I had been doing since being laid off and going into private consulting. I mentioned that I did a photo shoot as one of the model/actors for a drug for people with Type 2 diabetes being launched in January or February next year. I personally am not diabetic. I just happened to have the look they wanted (middle aged, mildly overweight and ethnically indeterminate). I told him about getting used to walking on set and having everyone yell, “talent walking” and then jokingly suggested he do the same as I approach the witness stand.

After I was on the stand, one of the first requests the attorney made was to have me describe what I had been doing since being laid off. I said some consulting work and some interior painting and not much else. I felt that if I had said modeling or acting, I would have diminished my credibility, rightly or wrongly. But I had no hesitation to admit to performing labor. After all, part of my testimony involved criticizing a painting estimate.

I was just wondering how anyone else would react to hearing a construction defect/estimator mentioning doing modeling and acting. As i look at my own reaction, I can’t help but think I’m being unfairly judgmental. The hourly rate for the modeling is very close to the standard consulting rate I get. As a painter, best I've done is $20/hour cash.

I don't think I would have admitted to doing any bartending or product promos either, but at least I hadn't done any of those gigs.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[SNORGY]

casseopeia:

You are who you are, and have done what you have done. Everything has value, and I wouldn't be ashamed of a darn thing.

I would be more worried about your credibility if you presented like someone who was trying to cover up what they were doing by saying nebulous stuff that they thought someone might want to hear in order to strengthen their case.

In my case, for three months of the year, I set my engineering career aside, act like a clown, and play with my dogs in front of thousands of people. Some people don't see that as especially helpful towards my credibility as an engineer, since in their view, a true "expert" would be studying journals, writing papers, and volunteering for technical committees in their spare time.

Oh well. I do what I do.

Personally, I view modeling and acting as strengths and indications of diversity.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[ajack1]

I would have thought the fact that you knowingly lied while in a court of law as an expert witness presumably whilst under oath would have been more damaging than any job you might have done.

 

[southard2]

My first reaction as a juror would probably be to taint your testimony as being from someone who might be fake, whimsical, below average intelligences, someone who will do anything for money, and more importantly someone isn't persuing engineering.

Kind of reminds me of everybody complaining about that recent sexist newsweek cover of palin. When that picture was placed on a sports magazine earlier it said, "here's a political figure who is one of the people and likes sports". When the same picture is put on the cover of a serious political magazine it becomes a "Can you believe this modeling bimbo might be president".

In your case if you told me that you were modeling while we were having lunch, playing tennis, or even say painting I would think now here is a guy who has ambition, isn't afraid to try new things, and outgoing. Change the setting to the courtroom and you get the reaction I stated I would have above. Modeling simply contrast too much with law and engineering.

Certain Stereotypes are so ingrained in our heads that WE ALL will often judge the book by its cover. If you were asked point blank you would have to put a positive spin on it using words like "great opportunity", "A good cause", "wanted to try something new", "pretty cool huh", etc...

John Southard, M.S., P.E.

http://www.pdhlibrary.com

 

[rowingengineer]

I would like to say no, side jobs don't dimish your credibility, but the truth is I would have tripped on that questions as well.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while you realize that they like it

 

[patprimmer]

I would have thought what you did aside from the job that qualified as expert was irrelevant and they had no business asking, however if my attorney let it be asked, I would not have lied while under oath. I may have asked if I was required to list all jobs no matter how irrelevant.



Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[jmw]

Cass,
you forgot the one thing you shouldn't have forgotten (easy to spot with hindsight): Lawyers, attorneys and their ilk are dangerous detestable loathsome critters.
That's why there are so many lawyer jokes.

In normal business relations there is always the chat gap when you talk about other things, ball games, family, kids music etc. but when in an adversarial situation with lawyers around it is as well to remember you are in a snake pit.

But that is your only fault.

I do think the attorney in question should have been choked off.
In court.
He might seek to challenge your credibility as an expert witness on voire dire by testing your professional qualifications and skill. His questioning ought to be confined to that.
But to move into your private life is, I suspect, quite irrelevant and improper and the judge or the opposing attorney should have intervened. Maybe they allow too much latitude in questioning in these cases.

What you do outside of your work is irrelevant.
That you had been laid off is also irrelevant.
It appears to be your impression that he was trying to discredit your testimony by inference, by trying to get people to think you had been laid of for some reason that reflected on your skills as an expert witness, and worse and that you are some kind of less respectable person for modeling or belly dancing.
Quite improper.
I wonder, does he chat with all expert witnesses this way? Does he try to weaken their testimony by finding out their golf handicaps etc. if they are having affairs?
How is any of it relevant to your qualifications as an expert witness?

But, I am assuming this is the opposition attorney and you didn't say that. Was it?
It would be even more strange if it were the attorney for the side retaining you.

It may be you could discuss this with another attorney and check out just how far they can go and maybe, if there is an appropriate journal (is there one for expert witnesses?), write it up. Get it talked about, share the experience.

Other than that, I don't know what to suggest.

I guess that in future you may decide to be more circumspect during casual conversation with anyone related to these cases, not because you have any problems with what you do but because some of these people you are dealing with are legally qualified snakes; they are not real people, they are not engineers.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[casseopeia]

This was the defense attorney, the side for which I was testifying. I think he was trying to diffuse any attempt by the other side to imply that I was terminated for cause by showing that I had an open consulting agreement with my former employer. So I just covered that aspect. I'm sure the attorney didn't want to get into any long discussions about non related work and the opposing attorney didn't challenge my answer.

It made me think, though. At the shoot some of the other model/actors suggested sending a head shot and bio to other Bay area talent agencies and I'm considering doing just that. The pay is good and the work currently more abundant than CD litigation. The work I just completed will be used for the website and printed brochures and ads. The more lucrative work is for commercials though. Far better than the technical consulting work. I'd like to think I could do both

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[jmw]

I guess this is one of the defense attorneys OJ rejected.
I'd have thought it was a grave danger of being an own goal and surely he should have explained what he was going to do and why.
It just goes to show that a legal snake will bite anyone within reach.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[MintJulep]

I think the attorney did a poor job of preparing you.

He is presenting you as an expert, and his job is to ask questions with answers that demonstrate your expertise in the relevant area.

You should of known all of the questions that he was going to ask, AND your answers BEFORE you got on the stand.

 

[casseopeia]

In the attorney's defense, he is from LA and may not have thought twice about modeling or acting coming off as vacuous, which was my gut reaction. After that little trip, he settled down into the items that had been discussed as the focus of the testimony.

I was concerned about what the jury would think, but I don't know if my concern has any basis. If I end up doing more high profile modeling, does that make me less believable as a construction defect expert? I think southard2 makes a good suggestion, had I been prepared it would have been a good opportunity to show that I was concerned about the health of others and offered my image and time to help promote a drug that helps in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. What if had been a new drug to treat genital herpes? Somehow I don't think a "hey, but I'M clean would have sufficed."



"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[ajack1]

“If I end up doing more high profile modeling, does that make me less believable as a construction defect expert?”

No but lying whilst under oath does.

 

[diarmud]

Several thoughts based on being an expert witness:

The less said the better, you could have said "...and some odd jobs." The less said about anything other than engineering is probably the best approach.

Folks may think less of you (and your expertise), if you can't always stay in your profession. Certainly a jury may think that. The attorney should not have asked such an open ended question.

Attorneys are looking to win, any information you give out could lead them down the wrong trail for you or the side you are on.

You have to be honest, even if it hurts but you do not have to answer questions in such a way as to give the opposing attorney an opportunity to discredit you.

The attorneys I've worked with will not ask a question unless they they know the answer. They also will not ask open-ended questions.

Good luck.

 

[patprimmer]

I have seen some top models that appear to be very well constructed.

Seriously, your own team should not have put you in a position where you even wondered if he expected you to lie.

I know it is only a TV show, but a quote from Rumpole of the Bailey always struck me as very wise.

He said, never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[TheTick]

Pretty much any side job can diminish one's credibility. Musician, teacher, student, programmer, parent have all somehow been used against me.

Simply having one's attention not 100% focused another's priorities 24-7 on-duty and off can be enough to cause trouble.

 

[casseopeia]

In retrospect I'm sure there was a better way to ask the question like "could you describe your rationship with your former employer" and I could have described my open consulting contract with them. And he could have said, "I understand you have also been doing some construction work" and I could have responded that I did some wall patching and painting for rent concessions to manage my costs"

live and learn. I'll be better prepared next time. And don't worry Pat. I don't think I'm taking any work away from Heidi Klum

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[jmw]

If you want to look at side jobs and how they might affect you, what better example than Dr Brook Magnanti AKA Belle de Jour

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Belle-de-Jour-misses-being-a-prostitute.html

If she can 'fess up to her side line I'm sure you have nothing to worry about....

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Ron]

Cass...as you well know, in our business, credibility is all we have when facing a jury. You did exactly right.

You have many talents. One talent is not necessarily complementary to another...just a talent. Your intuition is good as well...yes, it would have reduced your credibility in that situation, but could be an attribute in others. Your diversity allows you to be much more than the one-dimensional technocrat...but that's for the evaluation stage and the inflicted persona when testifying...not to be divulged, but to be demonstrated. Ya done good, girl.

 

[MadMango]

In court, when there's no relevance, don't bring it up. You did the right thing, withholding is not the same as lying.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[IRstuff]

And let's not forget that the inimitable Hedy Lamarr was a co-inventor of a frequency hopping secure communications system:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=2292387

However, I do agree with the notion that anything not related to your expertise should be downplayed, unless there's an upside to it that shows your credibility, etc.

Anything else, I would categorize as a "hobby" and deem that not reportable, just like you wouldn't bring up your ability to make fly fishing lures, or being a gourmet cook.

TTFN

FAQ731-376