The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
thehustle.co
The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#2I've done several patent trials as a lay/fact witness in cases involving patents related to an employment contract addendum I created when I worked for Amazon. The contract described various early web tech hacks (such as embedding session IDs in the URL) and denied Amazon the chance to patent them (0).
In the first one, I was in court while the plaintiff's damages expert witness (there to estimate how much this large three-letter tech company had lost due to Amazon infringing their patents) gave a presentation that concluded with some number in the $100M range. He was even gracious even to given Amazon the "benefit of the doubt" on a few details.
Having never heard this sort of thing before, I have to admit that found it convincing even though I was about to go on the stand and demonstrate that at least some of the patents in the case were bogus. Oh dear, I thought, how are the Amazon lawyers going to deal with this?
Amazon's lead lawyer started the cross-examination of this expert witness. It was very short.
Q: How many hours have you spent working on the presentation you just offered us? A:
Q: How much are you being paid for your testimony here today? A: About $25,000
Q: No further questions, you honor.
You could feel the impact in the room.
(0) I participated in these trials only when the plaintiffs were patent trolls, not to defend Amazon. I'm on the record as opposing Amazon's first patent, and would likely object to many others if I knew about them. In the 3rd trial I participated in (Amazon was not the defendant in this instance), I agreed to participate only so that I could donate all of my fees to the EFF.
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#3I've done several patent trials as a lay/fact witness in cases involving patents related to an employment contract addendum I created when I worked for Amazon. The contract described various early web tech hacks (such as embedding session IDs in the URL) and denied Amazon the chance to patent them (0). In the first one, I was in court while the plaintiff's damages expert witness (there to estimate how much this large…
That he was paid is not enough reason to invalidate his testimony. Everyone in court that day, the lawyers, the judge, you, were paid. Why not him? If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there? This seems a lawyerly sort of ad hominem to discount expert testimony without directly challenging the evidence.
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#4I worked in worker's comp briefly as a paralegal, and we'd pay doctors handsomely for a written opinion based on their review of medical records, which was most likely filled out by an assistant and polished off by the doctor. Good work if you can get it!
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#5I was an expert witness this year. In that case, I wasn't paid by either side. But I can understand better why people ask for big paydays. The opposing side does their best to make you and your statements look bad. Even when you know that's what they are doing, it's quite unpleasant. The lawyer on the side I was supporting said that this unpleasantness was why they often had to pay handsomely for testimony.
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#6I've done several patent trials as a lay/fact witness in cases involving patents related to an employment contract addendum I created when I worked for Amazon. The contract described various early web tech hacks (such as embedding session IDs in the URL) and denied Amazon the chance to patent them (0). In the first one, I was in court while the plaintiff's damages expert witness (there to estimate how much this large…
the correct response per the article is "I dont do my own accoutning"
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#7The bigger non-financial question, as the Inside Job (2010 documentary) claims, is that this expert witness ecosystem is a conflict of interest for academic experts. If I am a real estate economist, and an investment bank wanted to hire me to testify that the mortgage-backed securities bubble wasn't the result of negligent behavior, wouldn't I be inclined to publish papers to that effect? Naturally I'd also leave my engagements with those banks off my CV.
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#8I've done several patent trials as a lay/fact witness in cases involving patents related to an employment contract addendum I created when I worked for Amazon. The contract described various early web tech hacks (such as embedding session IDs in the URL) and denied Amazon the chance to patent them (0). In the first one, I was in court while the plaintiff's damages expert witness (there to estimate how much this large…
That he was paid is not enough reason to invalidate his testimony. Everyone in court that day, the lawyers, the judge, you, were paid. Why not him? If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there? This seems a lawyerly sort of ad hominem to discount expert testimony without directly challenging the evidence.
> If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there?
His continuing to be paid depends on him saying what the lawyers want. See also one of the main issues that people have with arbitration (that the companies supply repeat business to the arbiters they choose, so they wouldn't want to rule that hard against the company or the way accounting firms have an incentive to not lose their contracts by siding with the client on questionable choices.
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#9I co-authored an expert witness report once. We were paid about $500/hour. That wasn't out of line with what we normally charged clients but, it was actually quite a lucrative job for us given we charged for travel, research, etc. which were often at least partially unpaid time with our regular work.
It was a very interesting project but it made you appreciate why big lawsuits cost so much. I think our expert witness report cost about $100K from our side, but there was also about nine other complementary reports, all the time for the white shoe New York law firm, to say nothing of the creation of the boxes of depositions that we went through. The other side had about the same.
Oh, and the case never got to trial.
Re: The lucrative economics of expert witnesses
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That he was paid is not enough reason to invalidate his testimony. Everyone in court that day, the lawyers, the judge, you, were paid. Why not him? If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there? This seems a lawyerly sort of ad hominem to discount expert testimony without directly challenging the evidence.
> If he indeed has expertise that would win his party's case, what exactly is wrong with getting paid, even paid handsomely, for his being there? His continuing to be paid depends on him saying what the lawyers want. See also one of the main issues that people have with arbitration (that the companies supply repeat business to the arbiters they choose, so they wouldn't want to rule that hard against the company or th…
In fairness, one of the things that happens is that expert witnesses get chosen based in part on past record, writings, etc. When I wrote a report, I wasn't pressured to write anything I didn't believe. However, I had previously written a public research note that laid out my take on the case pretty unambiguously.