Podcasts about expert evidence

This podcast includes themes of violence Mr Justice Peter Charleton joins Dr Norella Broderick to discuss the recent BJPsych Advances article "Expert evidence: dangers and the enhancement of reasoning". Expert evidence: dangers and the enhancement of reasoning Authors: Peter Charleton and Ivan Rakhmanin Read the article: https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2024.18 Disclaimer: BJPsych Advances is not responsible for statements made by podcast contributors. Unless so stated, the content of this podcast does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor-in-Chief or the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Send us a Text Message.Confessions by criminal defendants are regarded as the most powerful evidence of guilt. So why would an innocent person confess to a crime they did not commit? That question and the troubling issue of false confessions is at the heart of the research of Professor Saul Kassin, the author of Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions. Professor Kassin is the distinguished Professor of Psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Professor Emeritus at Williams College. He is regarded as the foremost expert on false confessions. He has served as an expert consultant in many high-profile cases and as a TV analyst. His work has been widely cited including by the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada. We are also joined by Professor Jules Epstein from Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia. Professor Epstein is a practicing criminal defense lawyer, and also an expert on scientific evidence. He is the co-author of Scientific Evidence Review: Admissibility and the Use of Expert Evidence in the Courtroom, Monograph No. 9 

Deborah Britstone of 3D Solicitors and Alexander dos Santos of Serjeants Inn Chambers discuss the presentation of expert evidence in police misconduct cases and when it might be appropriate to ask a Panel to consider hearing the expert evidence concurrently, known as 'hot-tubbing'. 

It is never too early to consider whether your case will require expert evidence.  This course will cover the considerations of whether expert evidence is necessary and if so, what steps are needed to ensure that your expert's testimony will survive a Daubert/Lanigan challenge.  In addition, this course will also cover the steps needed to develop a challenge to the other side's expert evidence.  Lastly, this course will address the December 2023 amendment to Federal Rule 702 and recent federal case law and how to best prepare for the Court's reclaiming of its “Gatekeeper” role.  (5/4/2023)   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Alan I. Johnson at ajohnson@bostonbar.org  

In this episode, we are going to explore one of the most challenging aspects that an expert has to complete when considering evidence. Now, the task quite often includes the ability to draw down an executive opinion in the absence of sometimes material facts. Now, of course, that makes your job even harder, because you're having to draw down on other aspects of your experience, your knowledge, scientific research, and whatever other forms of evidence you have been supplied with. So I believe the real benefit of being an expert witness is to utilize all of that in a way in which you would otherwise in your normal setting would otherwise be unable to. So the real question I want to address in this episode is, how do you manage an expert report, when all of the medical or all of the clinical evidence or all of the relevant evidence in your area of expertise is missing? What do you do? And I think there's three distinct ways to manage this. There's an immediate pushback to the instructing party to say “I have a wish list of items I'm going to need before I can consider accepting this instruction.” That's something I would recommend that you do if you feel that there is such little evidence that your opinion is going to be very much provisional and provide no real value to the instructing party. I do experience that from time to time and I noticed that that is something that is a discipline, because you're clearly turning down an instruction or at least deferring instruction until such point you have got your wish list, or in some cases, most of the wish list of items of evidence.Second way to manage this is to say to yourself, “Okay, I have got some evidence here that allow me to understand some of the key facts. I'll be able to provide either a professional or a firm opinion, or, in some instances provide a range of opinions.” For example, if there's a missing image, or missing radiograph, or missing x ray, a missing piece of documentation, whatever the specific evidence is, that you feel exists because of the your interview of the claimant or perhaps other bits of information that you've been given that refer to a piece of evidence that's missing, is able to say, I will provide you with a range of opinions. So on my range of opinions will be, for example, opinion one if evidence shows X, opinion two if evidence shows why, and opinion three if evidence shows said, and then you outline what that evidence is in a list, and make it very clear to the reader that they have to provide you with that evidence and your opinions are likely to be steered in a direction. That's based on what that missing evidence shows. And of course, that gives the reader instructing party a much clearer viewpoint to say, my opinion can only go up to such a point, any further opinion regarding this matter is subject to the delivery of additional information or evidence. And of course, that will be subject to supplementary or addendum reports. A very common way I found to be able to deal with this in a really effective way allows the momentum of the initial report to be delivered. It allows the instructing party to know where they stand. And of course, it allows you to really force that thinking and be really diligent with your thinking as to the fact that you can't just stop, because you're missing some evidence. But you're suggesting that further evidence and providing the details of that is what you need in order to finalize your opinion. I think it's a very, very powerful way of dealing with those circumstances where you've got most, if not all of the evidence.And I think the last way of the three is to say to yourself, “Okay, we have got a finite amount of evidence, I'm going to be able to provide you with a summary of my opinions.” Now, this can be done via a pro bono telephone call instructing party, or it can be done with a fee attracted via a summary or screening report. And then that summary of screening report, you can say,

Chambers & Partners say of Professor Jones that "He is regarded by many as ‘the leading construction arbitrator in the world'". In this Podcast we discuss with Professor Jones his thoughts on different ways to more efficiently and effectively deal with expert evidence in international arbitration. In a candid exchange Professor Jones shares his thoughts on what works and addresses some of the myths surrounding expert evidence. Additional material and attachments can be found at klgates.com/Arbitration-World. More information about Doug Jones can be found at dougjones.info. 

In this episode we're going to explore all of the key themes and lessons that I took away from attending the interesting and vibrant annual witness conference held in November 2021 in central London. The day was a combination of networking, key lessons, and some excellent keynote from Sir Geoffrey Vos, as well as an opportunity to check back in with other experts to see how they were managing with the impact of the pandemic, the way in which this has changed their workflow, the way in which they changed their approach towards their clinical career, a lot of doctors, including some that are listening to this podcast, are clearly having a reset of their thinking in terms of how they want to balance their their work life. So huge philosophical takeaways, I think, for me, and I want to share now more specific lessons learned from each of the parts that I feel are really useful to take away. 

Covid has forced a change for good. This change would otherwise take decades if market forces, lobbying and legislation, ran its natural course. In this episode, we explore the changes to the medical legal systems that has created immediate changes , intermediate changes and a course correction to the future path. 

Expert witnesses have a unique position in the medical legal system. It is a subtle but very powerful distinction from other forms of evidence that are presented within a civil hearing. We will talk more about Lord Hodge's keynote from the Expert Witness Institute Conference in this episode.

There are five top myths that are present in expert witness work that I want to debug or  unwrap, and give you the other side of the equation so that you make your own decisions whether these are genuinely myths or facts or whether these are making the waters muddy for you. So I'll do my best to debunk them. This list of five comes primarily from my discussions with expert witnesses over the years, and a lot of them are continually coming up with the same types of issues. So when I refer to the myth, this might resonate with you immediately or it might need some consideration to think how it's really held you back from either expanding or starting your expert witness work. First on my list is that expert witness work takes a lot of time. There's this sense of overwhelming amounts of evidence and workload that's going to sort of creep into your already busy schedule. And in doing so, you're going to find that you're going to be completely overwhelmed and not be able to make any progress. So I want to give you the the other side of the equation where the expert witness work is organized and systemized based on your existing spare capacity. I use ‘spare' quite loosely because that is up to you to define capacity in your diary. It is very much based on how structured your time is. I believe that with the correct structure, the correct approach, and the correct professional attitudes towards this type of work will limit the amount of time you need to spend doing this type of work, to the extent where it can be part and parcel of your working week. I think anything between two to five hours a week is at the sort of medium to upper end of capacity requirement for someone who does this on a fairly regular basis rather than sort of ad hoc work from time to time. Of course, that should be the aim for you if you're looking to create a regular stream of work or a regular stream of income and to become more and more invested in this type of work. Next up on the list is the ethical issue. So the myth here is that the expert witness work is unethical.. There's that unfortunate interpretation that some might have about expert witnesses that you're doing some harm or you're doing something that's untoward. And I really want to dispel this myth head on because this is absolute nonsense. The expert's duty is to the cause, and to remain fiercely independent. They are there to look at complex detailed information which cannot be deciphered by a judge, by a solicitor, or by a lay person. You are in a very privileged position to be able to help the courts understand complex matters in simple and easy to understand words and in easy to understand explanations. That is your role. You are there to help, essentially, the legal system to reach its decision regarding justice and your ability to provide independent evidence. Constantly remind yourself that your duties to the court will never make your work unethical, in my view. Next up on the list is that there's a limited amount of work out there. This limited mindset is a real dangerous part of anything that somebody who is outside of the realm of employment is facing. They're talking themselves out of opportunities to expand themselves, both in their career in terms of their income and in terms of their view of the world. In turn, your ability to improve your everyday practice in your area of expertise. It's important to look at the facts that just in the UK alone, the clinical negligence and personal injury market is a multi billion pound market. This is a multi million billion dollar industry in one developed country. So if you've been dabbling or you've been considering this, look at the facts, do some research, find out how big the market is, and ultimately, ask yourself what is your contribution going to be within that market, and how much of that market share do you w

In order to understand some of the motivation behind what leads to patients starting the litigation process and suing their doctors, I want to draw upon my personal experience as an expert witness, along with my personal experience as a patient, and put in a situation where I was considering litigation. And I want to combine those two together to give you the experience of what's really getting down to the absolute core of frustration and anger, that often is the precursor or the motivating factor to initiate litigation in the first instance. So let's think about this for a moment. We've got a doctor on the one hand, who's got tons of experience and knowledge, picking up huge amounts of knowledge on their journey in their careers as a doctor versus a lay person who might have access to Google, colleagues or friends that have had similar procedures or similar experiences. And they're comparing notes, and they're looking online. Let's be frank, that's what they're doing right now. And they come up to this whole process for treatment with that level of knowledge versus what doctors have, in comparison, a huge disparity, a huge gap, between the two. And just by acknowledging that, in the first instance, will make us understand why there's such a vast amount of litigation in medicine today. This disparity of knowledge is going to be one of the key factors when a patient doesn't understand or does not feel like their opinions have been heard. They are going to feel like they were having treatment done to them rather than being part and parcel of the consent collecting process. The valid consent that a patient needs to provide in order to have treatment is a combined interaction and communication between two people that leads to an understanding to an extent to which they can make an informed decision. That is a process. The real harsh reality is that for the most vast majority of clinicians, there is inadequate resources and time to be able to collect that informed consent to be able to obtain that from a patient in a way in which they truly have provided an informed decision. And that we've got to accept that this is where we are today. There's a huge amount of underlying issues with regards to lack of resources, lack of time to be able to do this process. And that's not going to be one of the key factors. It's led to a huge amount of litigation right now. So I think to address that well as identify it is to be able to acknowledge that the communication, the consent process has to be of a really high an increasing quality as your practice evolves, so that your patient is truly making an informed decision understanding the benefits and risks of each of the alternative treatments, and making a decision based on that. So my personal experience was that the consent part of the process for a surgical procedure was obtained about 30 minutes before my actual procedure for which I was going to be put under general anaesthetic. So I am lying in a hospital bed, about to have a procedure. And I've been presented with a four or five page detailed consent form. Now, that is, at the time, something that I thought was the process, that's just the way that these things are done. And the post operative experience that I had was terrible. There was a huge delay to recovery based on the information I've been given. And so I was looking back to the point at which I consented to the treatment and thought, was I truly involved in all of the risks, but was all the risks of this procedure explained to me at a point in which I could consider them not an hour before the procedure, but that's days or weeks beforehand, to decide that something that's a risk I'm willing to take versus the benefit of having that particular procedure. And the answer was no, I didn't have that. I didn't see this particular proSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/dentalnegligencemasterclass)

There are multiple factors to consider when obtaining valid consent from a patient. In my view, the most important aspects to consider are ensuring that you've got all of the alternative treatments documented and shared with the patient prior to the commencement of treatment, that obviously forms the backbone, these multiple treatment choices were potentially possible. But the depth to obtain valid consent is ensuring that the patient understands the risks and benefits of each of the treatment alternatives. This is where consent can become quite complex in nature. If you start to envisage them from the patient's perspective, as long as they are feeling like they are being involved in the decision,  once they've got an understanding of the treatment options available to them and they're then aware of the risks of each treatment option and they're willing to accept the risks associated with the treatment option that they prefer, we're still moving slowly and surely towards the stages, if required to get informed consent. And I think these form the key factors, so that patients feel like they're part of the process. And they are part of the decision making process in particular. The challenge, of course, is most doctors have a very limited time to be able to have this discussion in detail. A lot of the consent process is done with the aid of consent forms. Of course, the challenge with a consent form is that it is usually quite complex and difficult for a patient to understand. Just by simply getting a signature from a patient doesn't necessarily demonstrate, retrospectively, that valid consent was obtained. In my opinion, the key parts to demonstrating that valid consent was taken is the number of stages that were involved. It might start with a high level discussion, information leaflets, recommendations for the patients to either speak to family and friends about the decision, or possibly do their own further reading around it, subject to your advice, so that they can get a better understanding. Of course, nobody can make decisions instantly or even on the same day. We all need time to consider the treatment options. For the purposes of thinking about your process of obtaining valid consent, put yourself in the shoes of a patient and consider a treatment outside of your area of expertise. For example, if you're an IT specialist, think about giving consent for an orthopedic procedure. If you're an orthopedic surgeon, think about having a dental procedure and think about all of the things that you would like to know, within that area that's outside of your area of expertise. Before you were able to make a decision, you'd want to know what the alternatives are. You'd want to know which recommendation that the actual provider of the care is suggesting. In the context of the alternative, they might say we think Option A is the way to go. But this is weighed up against the risks or benefits of option B, C, and D, so that both parties are actually making a decision. The biggest problem I've seen from consent not being valid is that the patient feels like things were being done to them as if they felt like they weren't part of that process. And it goes to an even more philosophical level that the patient doesn't feel like they were heard, they didn't feel like their position, or their feelings, or their interests were put forward. They were rather just told you're going to have to have this procedure done and sign this piece of paper, and we'll get it done. That's not valid consent. Although it might feel like you've got a signature. Think back to the last time you've hired a vehicle from a car rental company. Do you ever feel that you've truly understood all of the risks and benefits and risks associated with hiring a car when you're presented with a 10 or sometimes small print three or four side document that will go through all the disclaimers and all of the the finer details associated with the rental of a car. You may

Our Podcast guest is Ben Parry-Smith, a leading lawyer in family law. He's well recognized in this profession and ranked by legal 500 as the next generation partner. Ben has been a partner at Payne Hicks Beach since 2018, 10 years after qualifying as a lawyer. He presented at the Bond Solon annual witness conference 2021. Today's discussion is aimed at establishing primarily how to strengthen that relationship between an expert witness and instructing party as much as possible to leveraging all of Ben's years of experiences practicing in matters, which often involve relationships falling apart. One of the key parts that I've taken away from listening to him in the past is the dating process. Ben explains that this is the stage where the solicitors are reaching out to try and find an expert that's appropriate for whatever area it is they need expert assistance in. As an expert, a compelling up-to-date CV that sets out your experience is really important. A solicitor is far more likely to instruct an expert that's keen and efficient. He should be able to respond to the solicitor's enquiry, they don't have any conflict of interest, the area of expertise is absolutely on point, can do the work properly within timescale, can attend court on the dates that are set out, and a good fee estimate. Consider it as sort of like a service level. When you're going out there to obtain a quote for anything, you are subliminally making conclusions about the service that you're likely to get based on the quality and depth of interaction at that very early stage, almost like the dating process, where you try to make a lot of conclusions from the first or second date. It's that first impression, putting your best foot forward and trying to make yourself appealing. If you can't respond to inquiries in a prompt manner, you're probably going to be in a situation where you're going to be delivering the report late and you're probably going to be unresponsive to a number of things. It's almost like a check in with yourself if you can't put yourself in a position, maybe because you are beyond capacity with other commitments. If this becomes part of your career, it has to be treated with that level of professionalism and time of day or week and not just squeezed in between all your other commitments. Ben adds that if you can't do it, respond quickly to the solicitor or perhaps recommend someone that has the capacity to do it, someone you trust.I've noticed from working with lawyers outside of expert witness work that when I've asked, for example, for some expertise in Europe, and the solicitor that I would perhaps consider in the UK isn't available, they refer colleagues. It's probably unlikely that there will be a  referral fee but the goodwill that comes out of that type of communication resonates with you for a long time afterwards.Ben says that it's important that an expert is really responsive, who quickly gets back to the solicitor, and advises if they can't immediately do the work and provides the time when they can complete it. It's all about managing your clients expectations. That way of communicating quickly and setting expectations is really helpful.From a personal perspective, when I look at the time between receiving instruction and looking deeper into the court suggested timelines, and all of the other parts of litigation that they're often months ahead of when you're delivering the report. So there's almost this self reflection of I must do everything instantly. Otherwise, I'm not really serving my instructing party. I learned about the 10 steps to creating a successful relationship from Ben. We did not have the time to go through all 10 today but these are his top three.Having realistic expectations.&l

This webinar will host a debate over the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony. In August 2021, the federal judiciary's Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules published proposed amendments to Rule 702 to include within the text of the rule language directly stating that the proponent of […]

This webinar will host a debate over the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony. In August 2021, the federal judiciary’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules published proposed amendments to Rule 702 to include within the text of the rule language directly stating that the proponent of expert testimony must establish each of Rule 702’s elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Currently, Rule 702 does not explicitly include a preponderance standard, but merely cross-references the preponderance standard included under another evidentiary rule. A year’s worth of research into federal cases analyzing the current Rule 702 reveals that some courts apply a preponderance standard while others apply a more relaxed policy favoring admissibility.The Advisory Committee will host a public hearing on January 21, 2022, and those wishing to testify are asked to reserve a spot 30 days in advance. The Committee is also accepting public comments on the proposed amendment until February 16, 2022.The webinar discussion will be moderated by Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK. Participants will include Lee Mickus, a Partner at Evans, Fears & Schuttert, who has written and spoken extensively in support of Rule 702 reforms; David Wool, a Partner at the Wagstaff Law Firm who has litigated Rule 702 and Daubert issues extensively and questioned the need for the proposed amendment; and Katie Jackson, an Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Fellow with Lawyers for Civil Justice who has conducted research regarding the courts’ application of Rule 702.Here is a link to a webpage with several Rule 702 resources for those wishing to file a comment, testify at the hearing, or simply learn more about the proposed amendments. Featuring: Kateland Jackson, Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Washington, D.C.Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK.Lee S. Mickus, Partner, Evans Fears & Shuttert LLPDavid Wool, Partner, Wagstaff Law Firm

Episode 8: Competition Litigation Podcast Series In the eighth episode, Haidee Barratt and Alex Hannington are joined by Oliver Latham from Charles River Associates to discuss the role of factual witness and expert evidence in competition claims, taking into account the BritNed decision and the recent CPR and CAT practice directions concerning the preparation of factual witness statements.

Episode 8: Competition Litigation Podcast Series In the eighth episode, Haidee Barratt and Alex Hannington are joined by Oliver Latham from Charles River Associates to discuss the role of factual witness and expert evidence in competition claims, taking into account the BritNed decision and the recent CPR and CAT practice directions concerning the preparation of factual witness statements.

In this episode, we're going to explore and try and crack the biggest fear I think every expert witness has, which is the day they get called into court.Resources:Daily court lists

Emma Humphreys and Megan Davies are joined by Ben Faulkner of Wilberforce Chambers to discuss the key points for experts to bear in mind when preparing and delivering their evidence. What are an expert's duties and where does expert evidence tend to fall down? And what do clients need to think about when an instructing an expert?

Being an expert medical witness is certainly an attractive way to form an additional income stream above and beyond your income as a clinician. What is clear from my assessment is that the income rates are typically anything between three to five times that that you would earn as a clinician, largely comparing to NHS income. Supply and DemandNow, when considering income expectations, there are some obvious factors to consider. So the underpinning issue is around the demand and the supply of that relevant area of expertise. So naturally, there will be a range of expectations depending on the level of experience and expertise, and certainly sub speciality is that will be much harder to come by. So naturally, those that are in high demand of services and low supply of experts will naturally attract a higher rate of income than those where there's a much lower demand for work with a higher supply of experts. That sounds quite obvious, but it's important to think that through. The other factor to consider, of course, is the way in which you interpret your income. There'll be fixed fee work versus per hour rate income. And then of course, there's benefits to both. And there's disadvantages to both. But one of the clear things that I would encourage you to consider is the time that you require for each report on a fixed fee basis, because ultimately, your expectation of income will be based on a per hour rate similar to how lawyers will typically charge for their time, on the consideration that the income is on a per hour basis rather than being a bit over obsessed with the the fee being charged for each report. That will drive efficiency within your practice itself and certainly increase your efficiency as an expert with regards to the work that you do. Income surveys for comparisonThere is of course annual survey, the surveys that are carried out that you can obviously access, we've included one in this particular article, we check the link in there from Bond Solon carried out every year. Next one's due in November 2020. But have a look at the levels of pay rate per hour based on the respondents in a number of different medical specialties. And then when you're considering what your income may actually become over time, it might be worth considering your capacity or area of expertise and the indicative levels of per hour rate. And that way you can carry out a simple calculation to work out what your anticipated income may be based on your capacity, and based on your area of expertise depending on your speciality. Reviewing your payment termsThe other consideration is your ability to review from time to time, what your terms with your instructing parties are. Now, as an expert who's perhaps new or is inexperienced, there's obviously the need to demonstrate an element of flexibility and being able to demonstrate your willingness to work. And that can come in different ways, most obvious of which is the setting the fees. But of course, there's other benefits that the instructing party might want to see beyond that, such as being a consistently high level of service, and also making it clear that you are open and engaging and attracting more work. For those that are more experienced, of course, later in their careers, there's the important need to formally review fees and terms to make sure that you are clearly demonstrating your progress within there. Plan your income potential and capacitySo my summary thoughts really are consider expert witness work as an additional stream of income that can complement your clinical work and also give you further financial security. And I want you to also think about that setting some goals and some indication of what your expectations are beyond the next report, try and think beyond that the next s

The challengeWe're going to spend a minute or so just talking through what was probably the most important thing for the expert in my view is the actual hourly rate or the fee structure that you want to set out yourself , as a supplier of independent expert evidence What is your time worth?Now this is always a tricky conversation for most people because perhaps we've got to get to the bottom line of what level of time one is willing to exchange for the fees that are being offered. [ core is to measure your worth] And I've put it like that because ultimately, this type of work, which is akin to consultancy work, or very much a specific, unique professional service, which only you as the expert can do, it's going to come down to your expectation of what you set your sort of own value to. And starting with the end in mind here makes fee setting a lot easier. Because what we can do then is of course, reverse engineer the numbers so that our fees are reflective of what we're expecting to generate per hour or if you'd like per report, depending on how you prefer to think about this, then it's entirely up to you, I've got no magic formula here of what you're trying to achieve other than spending a few moments just thinking through what your expectations are. How much do you currently earn?There is a tool which I have been made available to prior to starting this course, or you could access it through the resources section of this module is largely around working out what your current hourly rate is. And it's quite a difficult one to calculate, because of things like travel time and admin time. And if you like non income generating tasks, which are part and parcel of your work, which eat into your day, but you would not be typically getting paid for things like travel, or note keeping. They're all integral parts of what you're being paid as a professional on a monthly or yearly basis. So what I would encourage you to do is just have a little reflective reflection on what you think you're worth today and what you would like to be generating in your expert witness work. I'd like to sort of at least say that in my experience, the expert witness work is certainly more lucrative than the clinical work. And that's largely because of the amount of additional time of non income generating tasks that were being performed by me, through the ever increasing levels of compliance, red tape, and patient expectations on the continual rise really do erode off that sort of hourly rate, because, of course, incomes are not being increased at the same level, to be able to maintain a certain level of hourly rate. Setting an intentionSo long story short here is sort I'd really want you to set your stall in terms of your price per hour, have a number in mind, and then perhaps we can think through how long a report is going to take off your time. Again, these things you can potentially start to play with, test, maybe measure if you're currently doing some of this type of work, and then set yourself some internal targets. For example, in my case, I set myself a target to ensure that I'm not spending more than 90 minutes on a report. That's subsequently reduced and I've set further targets to reduce it to sort of sub 60 minutes per report as well. Now that level of discipline is allowed, it's almost forced me to make sure that the work does not require my input is being done by somebody else. And in turn, that is obviously increasing the hourly rate if we're on a fixed fee basis, because the amount of time I'm spending is gradually reducing, but the fees that I'm charging are gradually increasing. And that's how I'd like you to really set out your fee structure and your philosophy around fees structuring. So, hope that's o

When you are instructed to provide a report on a claim of clinical negligence, it is naturally unnerving as a peer in your area of expertise is party to litigation. Today we discuss the ethics of medico legal work. 

Working in the NHS is very tough. We all have first hand experience of the impact of litigation on being able to deliver excellent care however the future liability could erode the essence of the service.  FactsThe NHS paid £2.4 billion in clinical negligence claims in 2018/2019, according to NHS resolution formerly the NHS litigation authority *The NHS resolution has accounted for £83.4 billion worth of future claims.The annual budget for the NHS in 2018/2019 was around £129 billion This amount set aside is amongst the most substantial public sector financial liability faced by the UK government. Underlying IssuesA small number of high valued claims mostly related to maternity care contribute to the majority of the clinical negligence claims. It is clear that this is a direct result of the constraints of the NHS system. In my view patients typically turn to litigation when some or combination of the following affect their care. Firstly, service level experienced by the patient and, secondly, quite often patients are waiting for significant periods before commencing care within the NHS. The providers of health in NHS healthcare are usually under considerable pressure to deliver a high volume of work in very tight time frames. This inevitably prevents the protection of time required to interview, examine, and treat patients, let alone address preventative measures that could address the core issues. I've been personally affected by this when targets were increasingly imposed upon me and the system within which I worked. The tendency to simply run faster to treat more patients. This is clearly not the solution. The lack of investment in prevention based medicine in the last few decades is clearly taking its toll on a system designed to treat symptoms rather than prevent the disease. Naturally an aging population with more complex treatment needs along with finite resources is naturally squeezing time doctors and nurses have to manage their patients health needs.. Future ImpactThe funding required for handling litigation by the NHS being essentially taken from the same pot as the delivery of care. A significant proportion of funding is essentially being redirected from the delivery of care and directed towards limiting financial exposure ( Over £4bn last year). This vicious cycle will perpetuate and compound the issue of limiting resources as more funding is directed away from the delivery of care and directed towards funding litigation. This worsening  position places doctors under growing amounts of time pressure, stress which naturally impacts on their chronic physical and mental health. Figures from the Office for National Statistics, covering England, showed that between 2011 and 2015, 430 health professionals took their own lives.Whilst successive government talk about investing more in the NHS, very little evidence of disease prevention is noticeable, in my view. Whilst no healthcare system around the world is perfect, ultimately to maintain a finite resource politicians must take a long term view on investing in disease prevention and screening rather than spending more treating lifestyle related disease.  SummaryI do not envisage that politicians are able to take the long term view in light of the limited time they have in power along with the huge political foothold that the NHS has become. It is clear that the quality of patient care is suffering through no fault of the doctors that provide it. In my experience the less time doctors can spend with each patient the more litigation rises. This is having a major impact on the health of doctors and dentists. 

Number one, summarize your CV so that a lawyer can quickly understand why you are the most appropriate expert for that particular instruction. And by summarizing it, making it lawyer friendly, you're going to get the attention of more instructing parties. Therefore, more work. Second part is really focused. It's about ensuring that you stay focused as an expert, making sure you stay within your area of expertise, and making sure that you don't get bogged down by things that are not appropriate for your level of expertise. Thirdly, it's about what constitutes the report quality. Ultimately, the ability for a non medic to be able to quickly understand why you've reached your opinions without using excessive medical jargon makes this easy to digest and understand for a lawyer. And of course, that will lead to further instructions for you because they will interpret that as a high quality report.Fourth - so this is going to be about delivering more and more reports and of course, there is a chicken and egg here but you've got to recognize the importance of building high quality reports that will in turn, drive up more requests for further reports. And lastly, fifth on the list is your intention setting out a clear desire and goal and ambition having that intention in your mind over the next 24 months of what you want to achieve and why will set you on.Your Host,Dr Sandeep Senghera https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sandeep-senghera/ 

This week Stuart is joined by a friend and accounting industry colleague, Ohran Gobrin from Fuller Landau in Canada. Together they discuss: Stuart and Ohran catch up (0:59-2:00). Ohran's journey from engineering to accounting (2:00-8:20). Being responsibly responsive to a changing environment (8:20-14:03). Rolling out a hybrid model in your firm (14:03-18:48). How Ohran went from living in South Africa to Canada (18:48-22:59). Ohran's different experiences and roles in the accounting industry (22:59-27:05). Technology adoption in the accounting industry (27:05-32:27). Ohran's experience providing legal expertise and expert evidence in the Ontario courts (32:27-35:16). What's on the horizon for Fuller Landau and the accounting industry (35:16-42:31).

Since 2011, expert witnesses have lost their immunity to being sued, which means there's a risk of being sued . Must have dedicated indemnity insurance And so I've been asked on a number of occasions in various different ways as to whether or not this is something to consider when it comes to accepting expert witness work. And I want to start off by really talking through some of the key tips and advice that have kept me away from any concerns regarding being sued as an expert witness. First and foremost, is to stay within your area of expertise. So you must not stray away from your own area. That means when you're looking at a new instruction, that you are purposely ensuring that you are well within your area, and that you don't stray away. And if you do feel that is the case, during the course of the work, then, of course, mentioned that within your report so that there's no commentary, opinions, or conclusions being made outside of your own area. That's clearly where you can refer to other experts within the body of your report. The other aspect is to remain totally independent. So if you feel there's a conflict of interest, with the potentially with the parties involved, that must be made clear the stock process. And of course, if you feel that there's uncertainty or something that's starting to feel uncomfortable within the report writing process, and you're not getting satisfactory answers from me, instructing parties, and do escalate it to the court and ask them for guidance, in particular, contentious issues, anything that gives you a sort of cause for concern, you're not alone, you're there to serve as the court. And if you feel that you need guidance from them, do feel free to ask them. And of course, you can apply these principles and ethics to your work, you will stay out of trouble. And of course, limit or eliminate the risk of being sued. So I hope that's helpful for you.Your Host,Dr Sandeep Senghera https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-sandeep-senghera/ 

There have been a number of cases this year that turn the spotlight on expert evidence, including issues related to inherent bias, expertise and experience and, the weighting given to, and admissibility of, expert evidence. In this podcast, Paul Croft shares his insights from the findings in two recent cases into expert evidence

How do expert evidence rules apply in trials? Listen as Daniel and Joe discuss the Rules of Evidence and case law on expert testimony and the complicated process of introducing this evidence. This is just the first episode of more to come on expert evidence. Click here for a copy of Daniel's recent article on Expert Evidence published in the SC Lawyer: https://mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=18928&i=719486&p=42&ver=html5

In episode 3 of Forensic Minds, we speak to Dr Chris Lennings about his extensive experience in the area of Expert Evidence/Expert Witness Testimony, as well as his experience as a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist more broadly. 

It's Monday so that means it's time for another round of #FallEpisodeDrop! Come and listen to Karly and Zach chat White Burgess, discuss how Law & Order betrayed them (again...sigh), and go through this seminal decision about Expert Evidence. Legal Listening - Where Audio Obiter is Our Thing! Link to decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc23/2015scc23.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALMjAxNSBTQ0MgMjMAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 Check us out at legallistening.com, look for us on CanLii Connects, find us on twitter @legallistening or email us at legallistening@gmail.com While you're here, check out our team! Julie Lundy: https://www.julielundyart.com/ Rad & Kel: https://www.radandkell.com/ Remember we're always looking for guest readers to come on the podcast. Have a decision you love? Want to see it recorded? Reach out!

All Souls Seminar Series: The Contribution of Forensic or other Expert Evidence to Wrongful Convictions in the United States: Data and Experiences from the National Registry of Exonerations All Souls Seminar Series: The Contribution of Forensic or other Expert Evidence to Wrongful Convictions in the United States: Data and Experiences from the National Registry of Exonerations

Dr Betty Martinin PhD Hon, Dr Joe Eleid MD Hospitalist, Expert Evidence Tampering by Big Pharma Big Food Big Govt, Toxic Sweetner Wars, Now in OTC Drugs Generics, Abortion Inducing, IQ Lowering, Trans-Gender Generation, XenoEstrogtens Modify Neural Paths Males, Cancer Induction and Gene Damage, Dr Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show, www.NutriMedical.com, www.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com,Dr Joe Eleid MD Article …https://futurism.com/neoscope/aspartame-not-proven-safehttps://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-019-0355-zhttp://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/research/projects/fcsCheck this out – from this article ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113 ), and I will attach the pdf, which I got from somewhere else – I read through this study and though the discussion of previous studies’ conclusions/methods seems honest, the conclusions drawn at the end of this study at best are incomplete and missing crucial points…One of the most irresponsible and misleading quotes is on page 9, of the 4th paragraph, and I quote –” The study authors who found statistically significant decreases in the content of particular mineral nutrients per dry weight of fruits, vegetables, or grains all agreed that these changes were not likely to have any significant impact on the nutritional health of consumers, a fact glossed over in some popular press reports citing these studies. “It seems misleading with the use of the word “fact” – since it is a “fact” that the authors may have said this, but the authors have NO BUSINESS making claims that they cannot prove (cue the Copper Deficiency article I sent you the other day). But I cannot say I am surprised, since the Senior Scientific Adviser of the Premarket Assessment Division for the Bureau of Nutritional Sciences of Canada, wrote this article! Of course there were no financial conflicts of interest, because his interpretation is a conflict of interest and allows him to keep his job, and do nothing about the quality of food produced. The free reign that advertisers get to keep people addicted to unhealthy food is another factor, and culture of eating is another factor that make a study from Canada even less relevant to the USA (maybe that’s a stretch though).What do you think?Best regards,Dr Joe Eleid MD For information regarding your data privacy, visit Acast.com/privacy See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this Gratitude:UnFiltered, Networking4Moms, a Non-Profit for Moms…..Please welcome founders Allison and Emily…. Allison Ferrante , co-founder of N4M, is a business-owner and full-time mom. She attended her dream school, Grove City College, a college that values both faith and freedom. During her 4 years, Allison was the president of her sorority, honor student, named on the dean’s list, was recommended by her peers to be on the homecoming court and received her Bachelor of Science degree in Business Marketing Management with a focus on Communication Studies. She was immediately hired to work for a prime contractor for the United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP). During those years, Allison married the man of her dreams, a United States Marine and now, firefighter. They bought a house, adopted a pit bull and, together, they realized that they had a passion to live a life that they designed. They quit their jobs and moved to live by the ocean in sunny Charleston, South Carolina. Allison competed and placed in her first bodybuilding bikini competition. A year later, they adopted a second pit bull, and she enlisted into the Air Force National Guard. A few months before heading to basic training, Allison found out that she was pregnant with her first child; her sweet, baby boy Micah. Allison currently works for the Town of Mount Pleasant full-time, while operating IEPPal, an education platform. She also started a non-profit, Networking4Moms, with co-founder and twin sister, Emily Seelman, which is designed to provide the resources for stay-at- home moms to be able to re-enter the workforce. Allison also operates a social media platform with her sister called Emily and Allison: an Instagram account and a YouTube channel. They are also currently in the process of developing a dating app for single parents. She is currently training post-partum to compete in her second bodybuilding bikini competition. Allison has a desire to contribute to her community and improve the lives of those around her by living fully, employing her talents, working hard and loving deeply. Her mission is to uphold the good, the true, and the beautiful while impacting the world. At the same time, she strives to do the little-noticed disciplines well, like growing in the knowledge of her Creator and raising and training her children in His nurture and Word. She believes in living with deep gratitude and joy. Emily Seelman, co-founder of N4M, brings with her experience in the start-up industry as well as a legal background. Emily went to Grove City College,a Christian Conservative school located in Grove City, Pennsylvania, where she received her Bachelor of Science degree in Business Marketing, graduating with high honors in Marketing Management and Dean’s List with Distinction. Her most distinguished honor was being elected sorority president. After college, Emily attended Duquesne University School of Law and graduated Cum Laude with an award for the highest grade in Expert Evidence. During her time in law school, Emily was an Associate Editor for the Duquesne Law Review Journal and received the Distinguished Junior Staff Editor Award. She served as the law school representative for the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Allegheny County Bar Association-Women in Law Division, Vice President of the Christian Legal Society and worked as a student-representative for the Barbri Bar Preparation Company. She was a three-year Merit Scholarship recipient for high levels of achievement. Upon passing the bar exam, Emily practiced as an Associate Attorney in the Civil Litigation and Employment law sections of Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC, the 13th largest law firm in the City of Pittsburgh. She also worked with the firm’s legal cannabis team in preparing applications for individuals applying for Pennsylvania medical marijuana permits. In 2017, Emily attended Tony Robbins’ Unleash the Power Within and Date with Destiny events, and realized her passion to live a life of entrepreneurship and to blend work, fun, personal-growth, and service together. She left the “big law firm life” and currently owns and operates a number of start-ups, including TwinMinds, LLC, which operates IEPPal education platform, and Tetra Growth Solutions, a cannabis application and consulting firm. She sits on the Advisory Board for Steel City Hero Hunts, a nonprofit charity that provides fully funded therapeutic trips to the great outdoors for Pittsburgh veterans. She recently moved from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Charleston, South Carolina to launch a social media platform with her twin, Allison Ferrante. Emily is currently training to compete in her first bodybuilding bikini competition in summer 2019 and documenting the journey on their shared Instagram and Youtube accounts: Emily Allison I am your host Joshua T Berglan and thank you for joining the broadcast, sponsored by Joy Organics… https://joy-organics.sjv.io/gratitudeunfiltered

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * Webcast URL: https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/expert-evidence-in-ip-litigation/ Expert witnesses play a vital role in an intellectual property (IP) litigation, particularly in cases where technology is intricate and an evidence outside a juror's common knowledge must be presented. Therefore, it would be wise for attorneys who are IP practitioners, irrespective of their focus, to keep themselves abreast of the recent trends and developments concerning the use of these experts in IP litigation. This will help them realize the optimum benefit from the expert, thus, giving more value to their clients as well. Join a panel of key thought leaders and professionals assembled by The Knowledge Group as they bring the audience to a road beyond the basics of Expert Evidence in IP Litigation and as they delve into the depth-analysis of the current trends and recent court rulings involving expert witnesses. Speakers will also provide the audience with practical strategies in bringing out the best in these lawsuits using expert evidence in a rapidly evolving legal climate. For anymore information please click on the webcast url at the top of this description.

The effect of disciplinary proceedings: The disciplinary response when expert evidence departs from widely accepted professional practice - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation. The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Adjunct Professor Bill Madden (QUT, Special Counsel Carol O’Dea Lawyers): The disciplinary response when expert evidence departs from widely accepted professional practice.

The effect of disciplinary proceedings: concluding comments - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) – Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series – Liability and Innovation. The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Dan Matthias Executive Director, Legal Services, Office of the Health Ombudsman expert

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Listen to this week's show right here.We have talked about expert witnesses many times over the past 12 series but we have seldom explored exactly what an "expert witness" is, what they do, to whom they are accountable, how they are regulated and how they come to be involved in cases.  This week, we fix that by catching-up with Glen Siddall of Aequitas Forensics, Manchester.  Glen is an expert in digital forensics and he is instructed by "both sides" in criminal proceedings.  We ask him about his work and about recent changes in the world of the expert witness and about hacking Richard Bacon's iPhone.We also talk to Glen about the recent BBC documentary, Panorama - Justice For Sale?  Did the programme accurately reflect his experience of being an expert and does he agree with the conclusions of the journalist and of Timothy Dutton QC, former Chair of the Bar about future regulation?In the news this week, fresh evidence appeals.  We record on the day after a man walks free after being wrongly-convicted of raping his wife multiple times.  Fresh evidence emerged that the complainant (who still cannot be named) had lied about the rape, had talked about lying in advance of the trial and seemingly boasted about lying after the event.  This is the nightmare scenario that, whilst certainly rare, we would prefer to think never happens.  He had been sentenced to 9 years for each count but this was increased to 13 years by the Court of Appeal, following an Attorney-General's Reference.With that and other matters in our minds, we look at what the Court of Appeal has recently said about fresh evidence and we'll consider whether its approach is consistent.A little bit of Freedom of Information too, this week.  We heard that the CPS was using unpaid students to prepare cases in one of its offices.  We asked if this could possibly be true.  They answered our FOI request.  Is the answer surprising or not?PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!Feeding BritCaster.com

Today on Hull on Estates, Natalia Angelini and Stuart Clark discuss a recent paper presented at the 6 Minute Estates Lawyer titled “Expert Evidence in Trust and Estate Litigation,” by Eric N. Hoffstein and Ira Stuchberry. If you have any questions, please email us at or leave a comment on our blog page. 

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The 2010 Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture on Medico-Legal Studies was delivered by Professor Jeremy Horder, of the Law Commission, on 4th May 2010, and was entitled "Science, Pseudo-science, and Statistics in the Criminal Courts" (The Reform of the Rules of Expert Evidence). For more information about the Baron Ver Heyden de Lancey Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events