Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1)
- Advocacy expert (1)
- Advocate (1)
- Anders brief (1)
- Anders v. California (1)
-
- Brief guidelines (1)
- Brief writing (1)
- Brief writing standards (1)
- Briefs (1)
- Clean expert (1)
- Code of conduct (1)
- Consulting expert (1)
- Dirty expert (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Expert (1)
- Expert draft report (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Independent expert (1)
- Judicial economy (1)
- Legal team (1)
- Legal writing (1)
- Model Rule 1.3 (1)
- Model Rule 3.1 (1)
- Model Rule 3.2 (1)
- Model Rule 3.4 (1)
- Model Rule 8.3 (1)
- Model Rules (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal Education
"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill
"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …
Better Briefs, Lydia Fearing
Better Briefs, Lydia Fearing
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Abstract forthcoming