Experts Face Fewer Challenges in Court, Survey Says
Reprinted with permission.
Experts Face Fewer Challenges in Court, Survey Says
Posted by Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author on 2012/10/30 Add comments
How often is expert testimony challenged in court? What types of experts are most likely to be challenged? How successful are those challenges? Do judges’ rulings on experts hold up on appeal?
The answers to these and other questions are presented in a fascinating study that surveyed thousands of challenges to expert witnesses over an 11-year period in state and federal courts. Conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, the study focused on cases involving financial experts, but also drew broader conclusions applicable to experts of all types.
Covering the years 2000-2011, the span of the study begins the year after the Supreme Court decided Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the 1999 decision in which the court extended its 1993 opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. to all types of expert testimony. While the survey found a total of 6,919 challenges to experts, it considered only the 5,360 cases that expressly referenced Kumho Tire.
Not surprisingly, the survey found a steady annual increase in the number of challenges to experts, from 253 in 2000 to 879 in 2010. What was surprising, however, is that 2011 brought a drop in the number of challenges, down to 778 for the year. Of those, 335 were successful in excluding expert testimony in whole or in part.
Overall from 2000-2011, 45 percent of expert challenges were successful in excluding testimony in whole or in part. Half the challenges failed to exclude any testimony. In 4 percent of the cases, judges made no decision either way. The percentage of successful challenges remained relatively consistent throughout the period of the survey.
Large Drop in Challenging Financial Experts
With regard to financial experts, the study found an even greater drop in the number of challenges. Whereas challenges to financial experts rose steadily from 2001-2009, the number of challenges fell by 40 percent during 2010 and 2011. Even though the number of challenges fell, the rate of their success went up, with 54 percent of challenges in 2011 succeeding in whole or in part.
Challenges to financial experts fared differently in different courts, the survey found. Within the federal court system, challenges to financial experts were most likely to be raised in the Second, Fifth and Sixth Circuits. Those three circuits accounted for 40 percent of all challenges to financial experts. The Second Circuit alone accounted for 15 percent.
While those circuits heard the greatest number of challenges, the circuits where challenges were most likely to succeed were the Eleventh and Tenth, with success rates of 63 percent and 62 percent, respectively. The circuits where challenges were least likely to succeed were the Third and First, with success rates of 34 percent and 38 percent, respectively.
Not all financial experts are equal in their susceptibility to challenge, the survey found. Economists and accountants are the most frequently challenged types of financial experts, each representing 24 percent of all challenges to financial experts. The largest percentage of successful challenges involved those that targeted appraisers, with 51 percent of those challenges succeeding in whole or part from 2000-2011. In addition to looking at how often challenges succeeded, it analyzed why they succeeded.
Leading Reasons for Excluding Experts
The leading reason judges excluded experts was reliability. This was true for every year covered by the survey. Of the 561 challenges that resulted in full or partial exclusion of financial expert testimony, lack of reliability was a cause in 380 instances, or 68 percent of the cases. In just 2011, lack of reliability was a cause in 76 percent of the cases.
“When a financial expert is excluded for lack of reliability, it’s most frequently caused by a lack of valid data,” the survey concluded. “Particularly, there is more often a problem with the quality of the data … available to the financial expert or how the data is reflected in the analytical framework of the financial expert rather than the misuse of an otherwise acceptable methodology.”
Two other leading reasons for the exclusion of financial expert testimony were lack of relevance (38 percent of cases) and lack of qualifications (19 percent of cases). Of course, courts sometime cite multiple reasons for excluding expert testimony. Of the cases examined for this survey, 28 percent of exclusions were based on multiple criteria.
Most Rulings Affirmed on Appeal
A judge’s decision to exclude expert testimony is not always the end of the story, of course. When a judge’s Daubert decision is reviewed on appeal, how is it likely to fare?
For 2011 only, the study looked at federal and state appellate court rulings on Daubert issues. It found 68 challenges to experts. Of those, the lower court had excluded the testimony of 37 experts, accepted the testimony of 29 experts, and not considered the Daubert criteria for two experts.
With respect to all but 10 of the experts, the appellate courts affirmed the lower courts. For those 10 experts, the appellate courts overturned the lower courts’ rulings. Six of the cases involved financial experts, of which two were overturned.
Of the 10 cases where the lower court ruling was overturned, the appellate courts allowed four experts to testify at trial, excluded the testimony of one expert, and remanded the case to the trial court to apply or reapply the Daubert standards for five experts.
The full study, Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts, is available from PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Robert Ambrogi, Contributing Author – who has written 27 posts on BullsEye Blog.
Bob Ambrogi is the only person to hold the top editorial positions at both the National Law Journal and Lawyers Weekly USA. In addition, he formerly served as director of the Litigation Services division at American Lawyer Media. He is an experienced attorney, ADR professional, writer and legal technologist.
This article was originally published in BullsEye, a newsletter distributed by IMS ExpertServices™. IMS Expert Services is the premier expert witness search firm in the legal industry, focused exclusively on providing custom expert witness searches to attorneys. To read this and other legal industry BullsEye publications, please visit IMS Expert Services' recent articles. For your next expert witness search, call us at 877-838-8464 or visit our website.
Related Pages on RF Cafe
- Tax Court Okays Use of Predictive Coding to Review Documents
- Court-Appointed Experts: The Future of Litigation?
- Inventor Testimony in Patent Litigation
- Regression Analysis in Litigation
- Expert Testimony Central to Coffee Class Decision
- 10th Circuit Posits 'Unifying Theory' for Daubert Gatekeeping
- Do You Need an Expert to Sue an Expert?
- What the #!$% Is Bitcoin?
- Dilbert Versus Daubert - Which Standard Controls in Patent Design Cases?
- Lack of Expert Leads to Reversal of Patent Case
- Excluding Expert Testimony the Jury Already Heard
- 7th Circuit Excoriates Lawyers, Judges for 'Fear of Science'
- Federal Circuit Ponders Abandoning De Novo Review
- Apple, Samsung Daubert Docs Should Have Been Sealed, Federal Circuit Rules
- When an Expert's Testimony Counters His Own Report
- Fortune Telling & Reliability? An Expert Testimony Enigma
- Can Expert Statements Inadvertently Waive Protection?
- E- Discovery: 10 Strategic Steps for Defensible Search
- The 'Almighty' Federal Circuit? Evolving Patent Policy & Jurisprudence
- A Scientific Weapon for the Courtroom?
- Experts Face Fewer Challenges in Court, Survey Says
- Death of the ITC?
- No Appeal for Expert Witness 'Third Wheel'
- Patent Trolls on Trial?
- To Testify or Not to Testify: Re-Designating An Expert Witness?
- The Future of Predictive Coding (Part II) – Caveats Revealed
- The Future of Predictive Coding - Rise of the Evidentiary Expert?
- Think Before You Click - Facebook’s "Like" Button
- A Siri-ous Affair?
- Denial of Cert in "Junk Science" Case Leaves Lawyers Reeling
- A Peek "Under the Hood" of America Invents
- 10 Predictions for Litigation in 2012
- Attorneys Turn to iPads to Prepare and Question Experts
- Two Mistakes That Can Produce Tragedy in Patent Litigation
- Opposing Experts & Summary Judgment
- Could IBM's Watson Make Experts Obsolete?
- An Expert's Change of Mind Can Be Shattering
- Why Do They Call Us Expert Witnesses? Part II
- Why Do They Call Us Expert Witnesses? Part I
- Bilski's Lesson: Avoid Abstraction
- Expert Secrecy: An Ethics Dilemma?
- New Federal Rule on Experts Takes Effect Dec. 1, 2010