Approach to Expert Assignments
I adhere to the Code of Practice of the Academy of Experts (Academy-Experts.org). I have received Law Society training in the role of the Expert, and have given oral evidence in Court and in Arbitrations on several occasions.
Sometimes a case requires in-depth knowledge of the operation of specific hardware or software products. If I do not have requisite specific experience, I will inform instructing solicitors and help find an appropriate person to assist. I have formed and managed teams of Experts in large and complex cases where the issues involved, by their diverse nature, could not be addressed by one Expert alone.
Structure and method
Having acted in over 60 IT disputes I can often identify common themes and issues, and then apply previous experience in dealing with them. For example, "gap analysis" techniques are used to compare the functionality of delivered software against agreed contractual requirements; responsibility for project delay may be assessed using critical path techniques.
I try to organise and distil evidence effectively, and focus on the key issues at an early stage.
I believe that applying efficiency and cost-effectiveness need not compromise the rigour that is expected of an Expert.
Reporting
Judges expect an Expert report to distinguish clearly between fact, assumption, and opinion; to include supporting references; and to refrain from making judgements — particularly partisan ones.
I believe that Judges quickly recognise shortfalls in these standards and that the Expert's credibility is often undermined as a result. Persuasive advocacy has its place in obtaining settlement of disputes, but not in an Expert report.
In my experience, an Expert report that is concise and written from an independent perspective is more likely to benefit a client than one that obviously argues his case.