Now let's be clear - the problem isn't that the person is doing his/her own research. That's a great thing and should be encouraged.
The problem is that we have lived for so long in a culture of dependence on professionals, so people have not developed the judgement skills necessary to analyze what they're told (on the web or elsewhere).
But in terms of finally "outing" bogus/unqualified medicolegal "experts" who have tainted God only knows how many cases (in the personal injury system many do upwards of 15,000 during their career)it is always the simple-minded clients (not the lawyers) who finally do the research. Shah in the pi system, Carter in the family law system and Smith in the criminal system - come to mind. The lawyers prefer to push CVs around their desks and call that their research into the qualifications of opposing experts. The problem with that approach is that the bogus/rogue experts don't declare their lack of competence/training on their puffed-up resumes. A little research - like calling the lisencing body/College to confiirn specialty training, etc - can be a dangerous thing indeed. It can reveal system negligence on the part of lawyers in the form of rampant unchecked, unchallenged, unqualified, "expert" opinion evidence be allowed to skewer clients.
The two quotes below say a lot about the research skills of lawyers who let their clients be skewered by unqualified opposing "experts":
".....We have all to realize that times are changing-amateurism, bias and fraud in the domain of IMEs will be tolerated less and less in the future.... For those of you doing IMEs for years, it is time to notice this approaching shift: the cost of litigation, cost of automobile insurance and lack of quality control of IMES, leading to public scandals, might soon lead the parties requesting IMES to be more critical when the appraising medicolegal credentials of an expert before hiring his/her services...." from CSME President's (2011 Christmas) Message to Members
* "Decisions, including arbitration decisions, denying benefits have been based on reports by so-called experts who lack expert qualifications or proper credentials." from: "In search of an advocate" Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun
3 comments:
Now let's be clear - the problem isn't that the person is doing his/her own research. That's a great thing and should be encouraged.
The problem is that we have lived for so long in a culture of dependence on professionals, so people have not developed the judgement skills necessary to analyze what they're told (on the web or elsewhere).
But in terms of finally "outing" bogus/unqualified medicolegal "experts" who have tainted God only knows how many cases (in the personal injury system many do upwards of 15,000 during their career)it is always the simple-minded clients (not the lawyers) who finally do the research. Shah in the pi system, Carter in the family law system and Smith in the criminal system - come to mind. The lawyers prefer to push CVs around their desks and call that their research into the qualifications of opposing experts. The problem with that approach is that the bogus/rogue experts don't declare their lack of competence/training on their puffed-up resumes. A little research - like calling the lisencing body/College to confiirn specialty training, etc - can be a dangerous thing indeed. It can reveal system negligence on the part of lawyers in the form of rampant unchecked, unchallenged, unqualified, "expert" opinion evidence be allowed to skewer clients.
The two quotes below say a lot about the research skills of lawyers who let their clients be skewered by unqualified opposing "experts":
".....We have all to realize that times are changing-amateurism, bias and fraud in the domain of IMEs will be tolerated less and less in the future.... For those of you doing IMEs for years, it is time to notice this approaching shift: the cost of litigation, cost of automobile insurance and lack of quality control of IMES, leading to public scandals, might soon lead the parties requesting IMES to be more critical when the appraising medicolegal credentials of an expert before hiring his/her services...." from CSME President's (2011 Christmas) Message to Members
* "Decisions, including arbitration decisions, denying benefits have been based on reports by so-called experts who lack expert qualifications or proper credentials."
from: "In search of an advocate"
Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun
Post a Comment