What’s an expert to do?  Should he tell or no?  Should he make a point of telling the advocate where the technical issues are going if this might not be a good place for his case compared to where it’s at now?  Should he say if the initial hypothesis as to cause needs modifying or rejecting completely.  Would the expert be perceived as biased if he did this?

The expert serves the judicial system but he is retained by the advocate.  The system wants justice for all parties.  The advocate wants a win for his party.  These conflicting interests can cause problems for the expert.

I see this problem occasionally.  I thought of it when I posted last week’s blog and commented there about where the technical issues might be going. (Ref. 1)

Would an expert be seen as biased if he saw that the technical issues were changing and wanted to alert the advocate to their increasing lack of compatibility with his argument?  And if the expert keeps investigating, it’ll only increase the cost of the investigation to no avail to the advocate but still to the judicial system.

Frequent reporting in the spirit of updating an initial hypothesis is the answer, and relying on a technically, reasonably informed advocate to ask questions.  Even encouraging him/her to get like that.  I understand the system requires the advocate to be informed of the technical issues and be able to explain these to the system, so the structure’s in place to keep this problem in check.

Reference

1. The cause of an oil pipeline leak is an easy call for a forensic expert.  Posted February 23, 2017

(I believe an oil pipeline leak is a good example of how easy it can be to initially figure out the cause of a failure.  Civil litigators and insurance claims consultants like to know early on where the technical issues in a case might be heading)

***

An oil pipeline has got to be one of the simplest structures in the built environment, “…a line of connected pipes that are used for carrying liquids and gases over a long distance”.  (Ref. 1)

The pipes are connected by welding the ends together.  The pipeline is often supported at the connections on simple foundations.  This would be the case in terrain underlain by permafrost – permanently frozen ground – or where it’s more economical to build above the ground rather than bury the pipeline.  Welding and building foundations are the two main tasks on-site in pipeline construction.

Such a simple, linear structure is susceptible to pressure to build it fast.  Fast work can be a threat to the quality of the welded connection and the foundations.

Pipeline planners and designers estimate cost in part on how fast it can be built.

Pipeline contractors make money by building it fast.  “Excavate the ground, construct the foundations, lift a length of pipe in place, weld the connection.  Next please.”

The adequacy of the ground to support foundations is investigated by engineers along the pipeline route at the design stage – but not at the location of every pipe connection.  Foundation soils vary even in the most uniform of natural deposits.  The soils will be weaker at some locations and stronger at others.  Too weak a soil will cause a foundation to subside and possibly over stress the welded connection and cause it to fail and leak – oil.

The adequacy of the welded connections and the foundations are inspected, ideally by an independent materials testing and inspection firm – but not likely at every connection.  A grossly inadequate weld while unlikely that is missed during inspection might leak oil regardless the adequacy of the foundation.  A less than adequate weld combined with the stress from a subsiding foundation might break and leak oil.  A low probability perhaps but still.

An initial hypothesis as to the cause of a leak would be easy for a forensic engineer.  S/he’s got three main choices for a simple structure like a pipeline:

1. A poorly welded connection,
2. A subsiding foundation over stressing a properly welded connection, or
3. A subsiding foundation over stressing a poorly welded connection.

Depending on specific conditions at the failure site, the expert would pick one of the possibilities for their initial thought on the cause of the oil leak.

Reference

1. Merriam-Webster, Dictionary 2017

It comes from the built environment.  Exactly where in the environment and how problems can develop – and owners experience damage – is seen below in the answer to this question.  A simple, high-school-level multiplication at the end of this short blog – but first, a few easily understood comments on what’s involved in engineering..

“Engineering at its best addresses the concerns and accommodates the interests of the parties involved at each stage in the life cycle of an engineered facility.

1. Seeing a need
2. Conceptualizing how to meet the need
3. Planning
4. Investigating
5. Designing
6. Constructing
7. Inspecting
8. Operating
9. Maintaining
10. Renovating
11. Reconfiguring, and,
12. Decommissioning

The goal of the engineering effort can be seen as satisfying the concerns of people at each of these stages, or at least dissatisfying them as little as possible.”  (Ref. 1)

***

I added Seeing a Need to this well thought-out list in Ref. 1 because you can’t conceptualize meeting a need until you recognize you’ve got one.

I added Investigating because it’s an important stage, particularly

• for the part of a facility below the ground surface,
• for earthworks of any kind,
• for anything that impacts the environment and
• when new materials and design and construction procedures are involved.

And I added Inspecting because it’s important to ensuring the facility is constructed according to the design, for the agreed cost.

***

“Forensic engineering can be defined as applying engineering principles, knowledge and experience to problems and failures where legal liability may be decided in a legal forum.  However, much of the work of forensic engineering leads to the resolution of a problem without formal legal proceedings.” (after Ref. 1)

“Failure can be defined as an unacceptable difference between an actual condition and the intended or reasonably anticipated condition of an engineered facility.  Failure may not involve a complete or even partial collapse.  It may involve a less catastrophic deficiency or performance problem such as unacceptable: (after Ref. 1)

• potholes in the pavement,
• foundation settlement,
• structural movement and cracking,
• earthworks, slope and retaining wall movement,
• water and weather damage,
• leaking roof,
• environmental contamination,
• structure and infra-structure maintenance,
• repair of a problem, and,
• mechanical and electrical equipment operation.”

One writer identified 209 ways a building can fail – and that was just in the part of the building above the ground surface. (Ref. 2)  A building can also fail in numerous ways below ground.  In fact, the part of the structure below ground – foundation, basement, utility pipes, drainage systems – is in many ways the most complex part to design and construct.  Not the most glamorous part, just the most complex.  Another writer identified numerous ways that a building’s basement and foundations can cause problems. (Ref. 3)

Contractors will tell you they are glad when they get out of the ground and start erecting the upper part of a structure.

A building is just one of the many 100s of different structures with their component parts that comprise the built environment – think about that, 1 of many 100s.  Look around next time you’re outside and count just the ones you see.

When can a structure fail in it’s life cycle – in the process from it’s inception and birth to it’s decommissioning at the end of it’s useful life?  At any of the 12 stages in the list above.

To answer the question, Where does civil litigation come from?  Count the places:

• many 100s of different structures
• multiplied by 100s of ways some can fail
• multiplied by the 12 stages in an engineered facility’s life
• multiplied by the different parties at each stage who might feel wronged and entitled to damages.

At it’s simplest, allowing two wronged parties at each stage, almost a quarter of a million ways that civil litigation can develop – 240,000.

I’m sure a similar calculation could be done for personal injury accidents in the built environment.  For example, the numerous slip, trip and fall accidents – likely more than the traffic accidents in the Atlantic provinces in 2016.

References

1. Kardon, Joshua B., ed,, Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice, The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia, 2012
2. Nicastro, David H., ed., Failure Mechanisms in Building Construction, ASCE, Reston, Virginia, 1997
3. The National Research Council of Canada, Performance Guidelines for Basement Envelope Systems and Materials, Final Research Report, April 2007

“…Lot of preparation beforehand – a lawyer just doesn’t walk into a court“.  That comment by Ron Pizzo, Pink Larkin, resonated with me during his talk at an APTLA conference in Halifax early last month.  I thought, “…Lot of forensic investigation beforehand – an expert just doesn’t render an opinion and write a report”.  The line in Romeo and Juliet came to mind, “A rose by any other name…” (Ref. 1)

(APTLA: Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association)

The title of Ron’s talk was “Wrongful Dismissal Primer: What to Know When an Aggrieved Employee Walks into your Office.”  And the abstract: “What you need to know to quickly assess a case and the advice you should give a potential client during the initial meeting to set realistic expectations.” ”

I’m not a lawyer but Ron’s talk seemed to be a good primer.  He listed several tasks, issues and cases to consider in assessing the merits of a case.  I’m sure he was comprehensive to the extent possible in the time available.

Ron’s talk might be broadened to embrace an assessment of the merits of civil litigation cases in general, including those involving an expert.  Or his talk used as an inspiration.

I posted a blog on the role of a professional engineer – any expert for that matter – in counsel’s initial assessment of a civil case. (Ref. 2)  A “what you need to know” item from the technical point of view.  Included was a list of 18 tasks that an expert could do to help counsel assess merit.  There was some emphasis on identifying realistic expectations for both counsel and the potential client, particularly about the cost of civil litigation involving an expert.

In an initial meeting, a lawyer, in most areas of practice, is being asked by a person who feels wronged if they are entitled to damages.  For example, Ron’s aggrieved employee. Or in the case of the built environment, by a person, an owner, whose property was damaged or by a person who was injured in an accident.

In the case of property, the difficulty is that awards are dependent on the cause of the property damage or personal injury and the party (s) responsible.  For an aggrieved employee, Ron outlined the issues and questions on which a case is dependent – what’s involved in getting a “feel” for the merit of the case.

Experts also have experience, questions to ask and cases to go to, in their respective fields, that point to possible causes allowing them to help lawyers get a feel for a case.

For example, it’s well known in forensic engineering that many foundation failures are due to inadequate geotechnical investigation of the foundation soils before design and construction.  As well, engineering societies and various authors have published on the different ways structures can fail – total collapse or component malfunction – based on a review of the engineering literature. (Refs 3, 4 and 5)

A general primer would be a valuable resource – one co-authored by a legal expert and a technical expert, that helps civil litigation lawyers get a “feel” for a case and set realistic expectations for a potential client.  At the end of the day clients also need to know that a lawyer must prepare and an expert must investigate.

References

1. Shakespeare, William, Romeo and Juliet, Act II Scene II
2. The role of a professional engineer in counsel’s decision to take a case. Posted June 26, 2012.  Updated May 21, 2014
3. Nicastro, David H., editor, Failure Mechanisms in Building Construction, ASCE Press, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997
4. Guidelines for Failure Investigation, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1989
5. Janney, Jack R., Guide to Investigation of Structural Failures, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1986

Lawyers need even more continuing education, particularly in the practice of civil litigation involving experts.  We touched on this when I was talking recently with David Gauthier of Gauthier Law, Saint John, NB.  I had identified two topics I thought worthy of seminars at an APTLA conference (Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association).  These were monitoring the cost of civil litigation involving experts and expert report writing.

If continuing education is important within one’s discipline, it seems some continuing education is important at the interface between one’s discipline and others.  Particularly others like an expert’s work.  Some civil litigation doesn’t go anywhere till the expert’s work is done.

My forensic engineering investigative work has benefited from learning about the civil litigation process and what the justice system expects.  It occurs to me that all participants in this process could benefit from more knowledge about the expert’s work – what’s going on at the interface between our respective disciplines.

David and I were chatting at the request of APTLA’s executive director, Libby Kinghorne.  I had got in touch with APTLA about attending their recent conference in Halifax as an observer.  I wanted to learn how APTLA organize and conduct their seminars so I could recommend suitable topics at the interface for future conferences.

I think APTLA should do this based, for example, on:

1. My experience investigating the cause of failures and personal injuries in the built environment in Atlantic Canada and overseas,
2. An advocate’s obligation to understand the expert’s work in a case and be able to explain this to the justice system,
3. Rule changes governing experts, like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia,
4. Principles governing advocates communicating with experts
5. The justice system’s interest in expediting the resolution of cases, and.
6. What’s taking place elsewhere in North America.

I did attend the conference: It’s All Wrongful: Death, Dismissal, Conviction & More held at the Delta Halifax earlier this month, November 4th.  It was good.  I was impressed by the comprehensiveness of the subject matter, the tight, packed-full schedule, staying on schedule, the good turnout from the Atlantic region – 83 attendees and 13 sponsors, 12 interesting exhibitors and the food fare.

I’ve got a new respect for wordsmiths; they can focus on a topic, say only what needs to be said then get on to the next interesting topic.  APTLA obviously have experience organizing these conferences.

The conference on the Friday was an intense, all-day continuing education conference by well prepared local speakers and one, at-times, quite rousing American speaker, Tom Vesper, West Atlantic City, NJ who seemed bent on challenging the locals.  The junior lawyers had something to say too and they were well prepared.  There were lots of thoughtful questions and comments from the floor suggesting the audience was engaged and interested.

I’ve identified a number of topics and issues from my blog site that I believe are worthy of an APTLA conference.  I started blogging in June, 2012 about the nature and methods of forensic engineering for non-technical readers.  It wasn’t long, however, before the issues at the interface between our specialties began to appear in my writing.  Some of these – quite a number, actually, are listed below gleaned from the 141 articles that I’ve published to date plus some ideas I picked up during the recent APTLA conference:

1. The advocate’s responsibility to know something of the expert’s work and able to explain the technical issues to the justice system
2. The “life” cycle of a structure, particularly the design and construction phase
3. Monitoring the cost of civil litigation involving experts
4. How to reduce the cost of civil litigation
5. The eight different ways – at least eight, of retaining an expert in keeping with the worth of the file
6. The high standard required of expert report writing compliant with Rules like 55 in Nova Scotia
7. Review of rules governing experts in Canada
8. Peer review of an expert’s report
9. Peer review of a forensic investigation
10. The less affluent nature of the small and medium size cases typical of Atlantic Canada
11. The “generalist” engineer in Atlantic Canada
12. Case history of a small, less affluent case/forensic investigation
13. Case history of a catastrophic, affluent forensic investigation
14. Typical stages in a forensic investigation (Like with lawyers who don’t just walk into court, “Lot of investigation is necessary beforehand – an engineer just doesn’t walk into court and give an opinion”)
15. Why the difficulty estimating the cost of forensic investigation?
16. Guidelines forensic engineers refer to in doing their work
17. Determining the standard of care in forensic investigation
18. The importance of an expert staying in his/her sand box
19. The 1,600 – at least, different types of experts in North America
20. Mistakes experts make that affect lawyers
21. Mistakes civil litigation lawyers make that affect experts
22. Lawyers visiting the site involved in their case – valuable!
23. An expert’s role in assessing the merit of a case
24. The use of drones in forensic photography
25. How to carefully select an expert.  Counsel, know thy expert…!!

Quite a mouth-full.  But, look closely and see how relevant many of these are to the continuing education of civil litigation lawyers.  Several of these topics with a similar theme could be addressed in an APTLA conference with a format similar to the one a couple of weeks ago.

For example, a specialty litigation afternoon could address the following:

1. Structural collapse litigation
2. Component malfunction litigation
3. Slip, trip and fall accidents
4. Traffic accident reconstruction
5. Environmental contamination
6. Earthworks failure, e.g., landslides

Key note speakers from away could be invited from:

1. Canada
2. SEAK, Inc., Falmouth, Massachusetts
3. Expert Communications, Houston, Texas
4. Elsewhere in the US

If for no other reason do this – address topics at an APTLA conference at the expert-civil litigation interface – to increase the chances the justice system gets the expert it needs and the plaintiff gets justice and the damage award s/he deserves.

It doesn’t matter how big the mess, if you can measure it you can analyse it, at least approximately.  Nowhere is this more true than for traffic accidents.  The following illustrates this and how simple it is.  It’s also important for litigators and insurance consultants to get some idea of the accuracy possible.

***

You’ve all seen the condition of a car after an accident.  You could be excused for asking how anyone can get information on the speed of the car(s) at the time of the  accident from such a mess – a factor in some insurance and civil litigation claims. Yet experts do this.

It involves measuring the crushed part of the car at key locations – the damage relates to the change in speed at the time of the accident.  These measurements are then referred to published and proprietary crash data by various sources for the make, model and year of the car.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is one source.  Finally, putting the relevant data from these sources in a mathematical formula to get information on speed at the time of the accident.  Laborious but fairly simple.

Widely used formula have been worked out by others and are usually not a concern to the mess measurer at the accident scene.  The formulae have a semi-empirical basis – their development is based on both observation and theory, like much in hands-on engineering.  Hence the approximate nature of the answer on speed.

***

The measuring procedure is not too much different from that followed by a land surveyor measuring the height of the ground at key locations.  The surveyor references the measured heights to a provincial grid then uses the heights to make a map of the land.  In fact, total stations land surveying equipment is used by some forensic experts to measure – “map” a crushed car.  The shape of some ground surfaces can also be quite messy, like cars after an accident.

The map or shape of the ground, along with other information, can be used by experts (geo-morphologists) to determine why the ground has the shape it does.  Similarly, crush measurements along with data from published sources can be used by experts to determine why the crushed car has the shape it does.  What was the speed to cause this?

***

I assisted Dr. Stu Smith, C. Tyner and Associates, Halifax take these types of measurements on three cars – a Ford, a Buick and a Nissan, during a meeting of CATAIR in Moncton recently.  The cars had been in real traffic accidents.  Dr. Smith was carrying out a practical exercise – a laboratory test of sorts.

This was a follow-up to a lecture on this type of analytical procedure by Mr. Jason Young, P.Eng. of Advantage Forensics, Inc, Toronto.  Mr. Young gave the lecture during a CATAIR meeting last June in Moncton. (Ref. 1)  Stu and I were doing our homework after the lecture along with others at the most recent meeting.

We laid out a “box” grid on the floor around each of the three cars, simulating the grid used by land surveyors.  Measurements were then taken to the crushed steel bumper beam in each car referenced to the rectangular grid.  Stu and the others at the meeting use their respective measurements along with the published data and a formula to get information on speed when the car crashed.

Steel beams have been built in cars in recent years for this very purpose – in the event the car is in an accident.  Even more recently, data recorders have been installed in new cars to get information on speed in case of an accident.

Findings on speed for the three cars by three different teams of people using different formulae will be compared with speed information from the data recorders in the new cars assessed in our homework.

I have a good interest in the results of empirical methods in getting an approximate answer to a problem.  Empiricism is all around us in the built environment.  Theory is in the text books.

The data recorder in new cars is also certain to have an empirical element – and we expect these results to vary too.  It’s the best we can do with messy cars after a traffic accident.  But we can do something with simple measurements as I’ve explained, whether with a tape or a data recorder.

(Dr. Smith looked at this item before publication and made helpful suggestions)

References

1. If you  can measure it you can manage it, even if it’s a real mess like a car or truck accident.  Published June 23,, 2016
2. Is your traffic accident investigator well trained, experienced and “accredited”?  Published February 23, 2016
3. “Seeing is believing” at a meeting of traffic accident investigators.  Published March 4, 2016

I continue to be impressed by the possibilities of forensic aerial photographs taken from drones of the locations of engineering failures and accidents.  Most recently when I learned that I could fly as “crew” on a drone and take the photographs myself.

I’ve used Robert Guertin of Atlantic Camera Man Ltd. in the past to take aerial photographs of sites that I’m investigating.  Robert flew the drone and took the photographs as I directed from a distance off to the side.  There’s a risk with this technique, however, of something being lost in explaining the photographs wanted.

Robert told me recently that he now has a drone that allows me to seem to fly as crew on the drone and take photographs when we’re aloft.  He demonstrated this last Saturday morning.  He flew the drone and I operated the camera from a station nearby.

I took standard orientation-type photographs from the four points of the compass from a distance and also up close.  Then I took video as the drone slowly descended from an altitude of 385 feet to 8.5 feet – note the precision in the altitude – stopping just above a duck on a rock in a pond.  We didn’t want to spook the little fella with the whirling sound of the drone’s rotors as he preened.

The drone is held so steady by GPS on board that the only way you could know it was video was the moving traffic on a nearby road.  Resolution was good enough to see the different coloured feathers on the duck’s back.

There’s no question I’ll use this drone and take the photography myself on my next forensic site investigation.  It’ll be remiss of me not to.

***

Drones are being used increasingly and in diverse industries.  The Globe and Mail reported a week ago on the following industries in decreasing order of potential drone-powered solutions, and a couple of years ago in a more descriptive way: (Refs 1, 2)

1. Infrastructure                  $45.2B
2. Agriculture                      $32.4B
3. Transport                         $13B
4. Security                          $10.5B
5. Media/Entertainment       $8.8B
6. Insurance                        $6.8B
7. Telecom                          $6.3B
8. Mining                             $4.3B

Forensic drone photography is likely to be used most often in the infrastructure and insurance industries.  Areas where engineering failures and personal injury accidents occur.  But drone photography is getting increased use in all stages of engineering: Planning, design, construction, inspection, and maintenance of structures.

As well, traffic accident sites in the built environment.  Yesterday I attended a meeting of CATAIR in Moncton. (Ref. 3) I learned that at least one traffic accident reconstructionist has a drone and is taking aerial photographs of traffic accidents.

There’s a good review in the article Drones and Engineering by Bill Corbett in the June/July issue of Canadian Consulting Engineer. (Ref. 4)

Not to be outdone by activity on shore, oceanographers at Dalhousie University are using drones to “fish” with – to locate and track the rare North Atlantic right whale off the Atlantic coast. (Ref. 5) I learned a couple of years ago that drone pilots have no hesitation flying over water, these flying machines are that well developed and reliable.

I saw it again last Saturday when Robert demonstrated how I could photograph a site myself from his drone, and over water if I want such a shot – see the preening duck above.

I will have no hesitation about flying as “crew” the next time I personally take aerial photographs and video from a drone during a forensic engineering investigation.  You must ensure your expert examines your site this way – many cases lend themselves to this forensic photographic technique.

References

1. The Globe and Mail, Send in the Drones,  Saturday, September 24, 2016, Report on Business Weekend, page B6
2. The Globe and Mail, Rise of the Drones, Monday, April 7, 2014, Report on Business, page B1
3. Canadian Association of Technical Accident Investigators & Reconstructionists (CATAIR)
4. Canadian Consulting Engineer, Drones and Engineering, June/July 2016 page 23
5. The Chronicle Herald, Right Whales: Elusive Habitat May Be Found, Thursday, September 29 2016, page A5

I suggested a few days ago scheduling a session in an APTLA conference on cost control in civil litigation involving experts. (Ref. 1)  Such a session might include a keynote speaker.  Ideally, one each from the legal and expert communities for such an important topic.

Tom Vesper from New Jersey is speaking on “quantifying the priceless” at the conference this November in Halifax in keeping with the theme of the meeting.  I’m sure he would have suggestions for a speaker on cost control, from the legal community at least.

I know it would be easy to find a speaker from the expert community in the U.S.  Likely in Canada too.  An Expert Directory by SEAK, Inc. identifies experts in about 1,600 different fields in the U.S. and Canada.  A number are in a financial specialty of one kind or another, including assessing and calculating damages.  I’m sure any one of them would have something worthwhile to contribute – a lot of ideas, including practical ones, on how to control the cost of litigation.  I identified some ways of doing this earlier.

The experts are retained by the legal profession and insurance firms in the U.S. and charge a fee for their services like experts do in Atlantic Canada.

For certain, it would be good to have at least one keynote speaker – if APTLA recognizes the benefit of a session on cost control.  Get a dialogue going on the best way of wrestling the elephant in the room to the ground and controlling the cost of litigation.  A keynote speaker from the expert community would beef up the dialogue.

References

1. Cost Control in Civil Litigation.  Posted September 8, 2016

I would like to suggest that the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association (APTLA) hold a conference on cost control in civil litigation as it involves scientific and engineering experts.  At the very least, include a session in one of the conferences held annually in the Atlantic provinces.

Confront the elephant in the room – the fees that an expert must charge to determine the cause of an injury or failure in the built environment and how this impacts the cost of litigation, including the worth of the file.

I thought this when I looked at the program for the conference scheduled for Halifax this November, “It’s all Wrongful: Death, Dismissal, Conviction & More”.  There’s a session on technical issues but nothing to indicate if this refers to scientific and engineering matters or just practical issues to do with all that is wrongful.

A description of the conference mentions “damages”, “a lawyer’s guide to calculation of future losses” and “quantifying the priceless” suggests that money is an important theme in the conference.  It would be good if the calculating and quantifying considered an expert’s fees – money too, with input from an expert on these.  An expert’s fees can whittle away at the award for damages – particularly in the smaller cases, if costs are not managed properly.

The Ontario Advocates Society recognize affluent and less affluent cases.  Presumably, big cases with big damages and smaller ones with less.  Most of the civil litigation cases involving the built environment in Atlantic Canada are small, not big, and not always well funded.  Yet most require a thorough forensic engineering investigation to ensure a reliable opinion – with attendant expert fees, some fairly substantial.

(An expert’s fees are comparable to a lawyer’s fees in Atlantic Canada because we need about the same number of years of education and experience to do our work.  Also because we assume similar levels of responsibility to the justice system in what we do and report.  At the end of the day, many cases don’t go forward properly until the expert’s work is done)

The cost of civil litigation can be managed.  I’ve identified some methods that are – if you don’t mind, no brainers.  Addressing when an expert is retained and how are two.

There are other methods that need dialogue between lawyers and experts to implement properly.

Or dialogue about whether to implement some methods at all.  Like managing investigation of all the technical issues identified by the lawyer based on his/her knowledge of the legal issues. Plus the issues identified by the expert based on his knowledge of what needs to be done to investigate the problem.  A lot of technical issues might be on the table after lawyer and expert take their turns identifying these.

Do we investigate all the technical issues or just some or just one?  How few can we investigate – to keep costs down – and still meet both the standards of the legal profession and the expert’s profession?

These civil litigation cost management methods and questions need dialogue not just blogging.  Blogging can bring the elephant into focus but lawyers and experts talking together will wrestle him into submission – and better cost control of civil litigation.  We could begin to do this together in an APTLA conference session.