I just attended a structural forensic engineering seminar, taught by practicing forensic engineers and two lawyers. It was super helpful. I've gotten thrown into the forensic side of things by accident but I find I really enjoy it. HalfMoon Seminars was the facilitator, so I'd check if there's a similar thing for your industry near you.
I bought a couple books from one of the many expert witness companies, and those laid out the basics of everything from writing a report to contracts to fees to being deposed to etc. Weeding through the "buy more of our stuff" fear tactics revealed some actually useful information. These are the two I got, although there are lots of others:
I haven't traveled yet because I'm also a parent of young kids, but I can say that the money is a lot better than I make doing my regular investigation work.
Mike is right - Ron could tell you all about this.
I have never been an expert witness, but from what I have observed from colleagues who are:
- The hourly rates are much better than for design.
- The mentality is pretty different to design or build because you are always looking at someone else's problems.
- An expert witness is kind of an advocate like a lawyer. Perhaps the most important skill of an expert is how well they present.
- In the world of construction forensic/expert witnessing, I don't think its associated with a lot of travel. Perhaps industrial engineering is different.
A few comments.....(my practice is primarily construction/structural forensics)
First, a forensic engineer should NEVER be an advocate. You have to be objective. The lawyer can be and usually is an advocate. You can evaluate things and help present them in the best light for your client; however, the bottom line is that you have to be able to tell your client and their attorney when your opinion is adverse to their interests. If you do otherwise, you'll get slammed along the route of numerous evaluations by other engineers, some of whom might be right!
You generally will have something to offer your client, whether you are working for the plaintiff or a defendant. It helps to have a mix of plaintiff and defense work so you don't get a reputation as only a plaintiff's expert or only a defendant's expert. When working for the plaintiff, your job is to find problems created by others. When working for the defense, your job is usually to mitigate the claims of the plaintiff if you can do so. If you can't, your client needs to know that. You have to be able to tell your client bad news when necessary.
Travel is a choice and can depend on reputation. For many years, I traveled over much of the eastern half of the US on various cases. About 10 years ago I decided I did not want to travel anymore so now I don't. I'm just as busy as I was when I traveled a lot.
Yes, the billing rates are higher than for design work. So is the stress and the lack of schedule control. The courts often decide your schedule, so you have to be willing to tolerate that. You also have to be willing to tolerate attorneys whose entire job is to discredit you and make it appear that you are wrong in your opinions.
Additional:
The bottom-line answer has to be that same no matter who is paying your bill. You can't let your fee dictate your opinions. Only the technical data and your objective evaluation of the data can create your opinions.
Two reasonable engineers can review the same facts/data and reach different opinions. Presentation of your opinions and positions is important, but even a good presentation won't ultimately carry the day if you're wrong and you have several engineers on the other side who can prove it.
Be sure you are right. Be sure that you can prove it with well-founded data obtained in an accepted scientific/engineering process.
I enjoy the challenges presented by the forensic process. I've been doing this a long time.
Ron: Why are expert witnesses hired by the litigants individually and not by the court?
When I become president of the universe, my first act will be to make the primary counsellors in legal disputes engineers and have lawyers work for them as sub consultants.
The little bit of forensics I have been involved with has been super fun as a Sherlock Holmes detective thing, but the conflict side of things stresses me out. I really feel bad for the guys I am pointing the finger at.
glass99...your aspirations are higher than mine...I only wanted to be Mayor of the World. Oh well.
I like your idea, but it won't likely happen for two reasons.....
1. What Mike said
2. The "courts" are lawyer derived and driven. I can't see them yielding to anyone who is not a lawyer! In most jurisdictions, judges must be lawyers by profession. There are some exceptions, but not many.
It is a screwy circle....most laws are created by legislators, most of whom are lawyers. The laws are often so complex that it takes a lawyer to interpret them. Two lawyers fight about the interpretations....another lawyer (the judge) makes a ruling on the interpretation that is "final" (except for appeals). Messy.
One comment. While I have not made it a practice to promote a business as an expert, it has come about naturally due to my experience and reputation. In addition to Ron's comments, you have to have the ability to stand up to severe questioning while on the stand. Getting flustered or arguing with the questioner just can't happen. Ya gotta hold your cool. A little humor now and then helps also. Your education and engineering experience should be extensive, so don't just jump into this right out of college or with just a few years experience.
oldestguy: I feel like its all about gravitas for expert witnesses. Are you "bulletproof"?
Ron + Mike: A court retained expert could still be paid for by the litigants. The judge chooses the expert and sends the litigants a bill for half each.
In my engineer driven dispute resolution concept, it would probably be in a mediation setting not court. If its a technical project with a lots of shades of engineering grey, its primarily about expert witnesses, and what the law or contracts say is less important. In such cases, the engineers should be running the show. Break the bar association cartel!
glass99, remind me in June or whenever this one case finally finishes to tell you about a case I'm currently involved with. I had your exact dilemma about feeling bad for the defendant. I was wisely reminded that, as an expert witness, there are two sides to this work: the personal feelings and the professional observations. I feel so, so bad personally about the situation in this one case, but that doesn't change my professional engineering judgement at all. You just have to allow the two to coexist but not affect one another. What's the fancy word for that - dichotomy?
Mike: If you were being paid by the court, why would you have trouble collecting your bill? They are a big stable institution. The court would collect from the litigants, and if they can't collect that's their problem. Courts also have the power to chuck them in jail if they don't pay.
SLTA: The thing which a technical expert can bring is some rationality about the physical behavior rather than the usual emotional blaming that goes on. I think where it gets interesting is your judgement on what constitutes "reasonable care". If a building facade leaks because the silicone was installed in a rush at the last minute, I feel like the reason they were in a rush should be taken into consideration by the expert. You could just say it leaks and the spec says it shouldn't, so therefore they are at fault. However, if the contractors were delayed in their start by other trades not being finished and their end date not being moved back under threat of liquidated damages, did the owner actually be default buy a lower quality of work?
whew. that's a tricky one. at that point, I'd let the lawyers argue it out... your point would be that the building is leaking due to the rush. Good luck~
glass99.....Building was leaking because the job was rushed? Not an excuse for poor workmanship. If that were to ever prevail, every subcontractor would then use it as an excuse to provide crappy workmanship.
Yes, we take that into account, but not in the manner you suggest. I would consider that if rushed, it was poor coordination on the part of the General Contractor, who bears overall responsibility for means and methods, control of the job, scheduling and coordination of trades. Then it becomes a subrogation fight between the GC and sub, but the owner still has a claim...the problem still exists and so the owner should be made whole by correction of the problem. The only issue is who ultimately pays....the GC or the sub....the owner doesn't care who pays, just that payment occurs.
Ron: I would argue that an owner never truly buys a building in an open and shut manner, but participates in the decision making processes during the construction, and therefore should bear at least some of the responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. In practically every project I am involved with the owner micromanages to some degree.
There is just such a facade leaking situation on a project which I am witness to in NYC right now. It involves a famous architect and the condo association has hired a well known forensic engineering firm. The project was designed as this high end thing with super custom geometry and fancy operable windows. At some point in about 2008 the economy started to tank, and the developer had to cut money out. They fired their competent German facade contractor and hired a dodgy Chinese facade contractor, albeit through their GC. It got done and it looks great, but the project became this slow motion car crash that is now turning into a bonfire. There are 1/2" gaps between gaskets that are supposed to be water tight. There is no easy way to fix it, and they may need to tear the whole facade off and redo. I knew the facade guys doing the work at the time, and there were this chaotic mess. They had workers stealing tools and materials routinely, no project management, just mayhem. The Chinese facade contractor is now "out of business", at least in the US.
Is the developer really a victim here? They were knowingly buying garbage because the they were broke and desperate. But in court, they will pull out the specification and compare that to the built work and make the correct observation that it does not conform. It was a design build contract and the built work does not conform with the performance requirement to be water tight, therefore its not the developers fault. Ok the facade contractor should not have sold a defective product either and should pay for that, but that can't be the whole story.
The role of an expert should encompass not just the physical reality but the commercial reality also because they are intertwined. Lawyers have no idea about how things really work because they are stuck in their legal ivory tower - > Engineers should run things!
![[bigsmile]](/data/assets/smilies/bigsmile.gif "[bigsmile] [bigsmile]")
![[openup]](/data/assets/smilies/openup.gif "[openup] [openup]")
