MULTI-SOURCE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT PSYCHIATRIC WITNESS COMPETENCE: PROMPTS
1. Professionalism
• Negative features
Defensive; evasive; argumentative; pompous; gets angry or flushed; aggressive; too definite; inflexible; intransigent;
confusing; rambling; inappropriately dressed; disrespectful; unprepared; bullying manner
• Positive features
Confident; dignified; appropriately authoritative; diligent; appropriately persuasive; calm; balanced; fair; personable;
measured; careful; independence of thought; organised;
2. Ethics
• Negative features
Opinion tailored to improve party’s prospects; includes/excludes matters suggested by others without forming independent opinion;
willing to mislead as to fees; CV misleading, exaggerated or untruthful; misleads as to substance of material instructions;
material omissions; in experts’ meeting seeks to mislead as to what seen/not seen; refusal to reconsider opinion; failure
to comply with duty to correct or qualify when necessary; strays outside field of expertise; breaches confidentiality;
fails to disclose judicial criticism or professional regulator’s adverse findings
• Positive features
Honest; discreet; trustworthy; plain-dealing; impartial; unbiased; respectful of justice; moral courage; identifies
potential/actual conflict of interest; uninfluenced by exigencies of litigation; restricts opinion to own field; recognises
limits of expertise; refuses to change opinion to improve party’s prospects; withstands pressure to amend report where
the result will cease to be independent and objective; makes clear limits of knowledge or competence; discloses any
adverse criticism by judges; willingness to act pro bono or for reduced fees.
3. Skills
• Negative features
Inability to master complex technical/medical issues; inability to concentrate, absorb and assimilate arguments under
time pressure; poor evaluative ability; inability to apply legal principles and tests; inefficiency in gathering and
collating evidence; poor judgement as to reliability of evidence; poor memory of salient details; poor reasoning
ability; becomes over-involved in the party’s team and loses independence of opinion
• Positive features
Gets to heart of issue; masters complex technical/medical, factual issues; absorbs, assimilates, recalls sometimes
unwieldy amounts of information, salient issues within time constraints; evaluates facts and applies legal principles
and tests, answers legal questions; can gather, evaluate and weigh evidence reaching judgement as to reliability;
analytical ability; attention to detail; logical reasoning; identifies other important issues, missing information,
other necessary expertise; understands potential influence of litigation on litigant’s presentation; able to work
in a team without compromising duty to court
4. Reliability of opinion
• Negative features
Inference/conclusions not properly researched; opinion formed on inadequate basis; failure to give reasons for opinion;
failure to take into account material facts; failure to mention all matters relevant to opinion; failure to mention
matters adverse to opinion; failure to include range of opinion; failure to explain why opinion is to be preferred
to other opinions in the range of opinion; failure clearly to indicate opinion is qualified; failure to revise opinion
taking into consideration further materials; report is in form of advocacy
• Positive features
Objective; soundly, well-researched and evidence based; well-referenced; thorough consideration of all relevant facts
and issues; attention to detail; well-constructed; very powerful; includes assessment of reliability of information;
takes into account all material facts/relevant information; identifies weakness as well as strengths; identifies and
accommodates unusual, contradictory or inconsistent features; clarity of argument and conclusion; range of reasonable
opinion; indicates clearly if opinion is qualified and why; identifies and explains need for other expert opinion
5. Presentation of opinion/Report
• Negative features
Title of action missing; author not adequately identified; contact details insufficient; commissioner of report missing;
date of report only on first page; no reference to consent; margins too narrow; font size too small; pages or paragraphs
not numbered; poorly constructed; written in third person; difficult to follow; unclear as to the issues; no explanation
of methodology; difficult to compare with other expert reports; insufficient headings/subheadings; typographical errors;
extreme forms of expression; mixes fact and opinion; unclear what documents or records seen; no summary of conclusions;
fails to indicate underlying assumptions; insufficient details of relevant qualifications and experience; no glossary.
• Positive features
Organised; identifies title of action, case number and name of court; specialist field identified; identifies subject
matter; contents page; synopsis at beginning; list of relevant parties/institutions; clear statement of substance of all
material instructions; good use of headers and footers; clarity as to questions/ issues; well-constructed; internally
consistent; logical; straightforward; very easy to read and understand for a lay person; easy to follow and navigate; clear;
concise; succinct; neutral, non-judgmental language; short sentences; short paragraphs; facts and opinion separate;
separation of different types/source of fact; shows all sources of information; attaches/includes copies of relevant
unpublished documents; sufficiently detailed list of papers, chapters, books cited
6. Understanding of law, procedure and rules of evidence
• Negative features
Regards duty as being to instructing solicitors; misunderstands, or ignorant of relevant statute and/or case law; wrong legal
test; wrong standard of proof; fails to comply with relevant rules, practice directions and protocols; missing or inaccurate
declaration or statement of truth.
• Positive features
Understands duty to court; understands relevant statute and/or case law; understands relevant legal tests; applies correct
legal tests; understands relevant rules of evidence, eg burden and standard of proof; understands relevant rules, practice
directions and protocols; appropriate and accurate declarations and statement of truth
7. Oral testimony
• Negative features
Sharp; evasive; over-defensive; fences; drawn into argument or slanging match; biased; lacking independence; outraged at line
of questioning; pedantic; didactic; unqualified and dogmatic opinion; too definite; pompous; egotistical; tries to be
clever; arrogant; patronising; condescending; over-confident; unconvincing; opinion based on limited or flawed evidence;
attempts to cover up, blame someone else, deny wrong; reluctance to re-examine opinion in the light of further evidence;
inappropriately sticks to opinion through thick and thin; flustered; unsure; loses cool; gets angry; looks anxious,
nervous, worried; inappropriately dressed; talks too loud during proceedings; talks or moves when witnesses or jury being sworn.
• Positive features
Confident; knowledgeable; authoritative; impartial; reassuring independence; careful; patient; measured; calm; masterly;
authoritative; objective; robust; internally consistent; logical; succinct; precision; clear explanation; modifies delivery,
language, content according to audience; relentlessly polite, respectful, courteous; understands evidence and arguments
under time constraints; moderated response to searching, informed cross-examination; communicates clearly in spite of
provocation; can entertain alternative points of view; acknowledges fairness of points contrary to party’s case, clear
rebuttal of such if appropriate; faces up to and accepts logic of propositions; appropriate concessions; willing to
change/ modify opinions when appropriate; personable; jury-friendly with appropriate professional detachment from
‘the fray’; professional, dignified dress and behaviour; observes court etiquette
8. Business manners and affairs
• Negative features
Difficult to contact; messages unanswered; curriculum vitae not provided; curriculum vitae insufficiently detailed to
decide whether or not the expert is appropriate; date of consultation with subject of report repeatedly changed resulting
in delay; report delivered after agreed deadline; delay in answering questions, meeting other party’s expert, preparing
joint statement; does not make clear difficulty in attending trial; insufficiently detailed invoice
• Positive features
Easy to contact; sufficient information about proposed fees; identifies and explains potential conflict of interest; explains
difficulties in complying with deadlines; able to prioritise case where appropriate; easy access to up-to-date commitments
list that includes sufficient details of other trials to facilitate liaison between solicitors and courts; clarity as to
travelling expenses, disbursements, cancellation charges; prompt responses to requests for clarification or amendment;
accurate, expeditious and ethical recording of work and invoicing.