As for "biases," your own words confirm what all have suspected at this site for many months. You see, when I take a case, I actually look at the facts of the case before I write my report. If you go back to my database, you will find that out of the 2,300-plus cases that I have reviewed for my clients, a significant percentage of my clients don't get an answer that is particularly helpful to their case. I have built a reputation for calling it the way I see it and my clients wouldn't have it any other way.
Nowhere in the training that any expert recieves is there a dicatate that you become an ADVOCATE for your client - that position is specifically left to the attornies. To do so results in one becoming biased. I cannot think of milder term to describe your actions in this matter. Every time I take a call from a client, I first have to check to make sure my company has not already been retained by someone else in the matter. To knowingly converse with others about a matter that falls under priviledge doctrine is illegal and unethical. To call someone under false pretenses to obtain ammunition for cross examination goes beyond both.
Bruce McNally, Director
Northeast Collision Analysis, Inc.
Bruce McNally ACTAR 670
bruce@northeastcollision.com
Use this form to reply to this Thread