What are the instructing Party’s expectations of a Party-appointed expert:
• That the expert is instructed as late as possible to save costs?
• That the expert will and can be pushed to provide an opinion that is as favourable as possible to the instructing party’s already pleaded case?
• That the expert will advocate / argue the Party’s case?
• That the expert will raise no counter arguments to the Party’s case?
• That the expert does not cave in and change their opinions in the face of:
— New evidence that does not support the Party’s case
— Counter arguments raised by the opposing expert (for example during the conduct of a meeting of experts)
— Cross examination at the hearing
The points above are deliberately at the extreme end of the expectations that the instructing Party may have of a Party-appointed expert and sophisticated clients, for example large corporates with in-house Counsel, may have none of these expectations and even less sophisticated Parties should have any such expectations removed or at least moderated by the Counsel they instruct. However, could there still be some residual desire for these qualities from a Party- appointed expert?