George Ruttinger is a partner and chair of the Government Contracts Group in the Washington, D.C., office of Crowell & Moring LLP. He specializes in contract litigation and counseling. He has represented clients in state and federal courts, arbitration proceedings, minitrials, mediations, and federal administrative agencies. Joe Meadows is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices commercial litigation.
The evidentiary rules and discovery requirements in arbitration are far less onerous than in a courtroom. As a result, lawyers who represent parties in arbitration have more opportunities to use and present expert evidence. This article addresses some of those opportunities.
In traditional litigation, the basic routine for working with experts involves several steps. First, counsel selects one or more experts who can communicate well to a judge or jury and qualify as experts under judicial evidence rules.1 Typically, this means that experts must possess sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the subject matter of the dispute.2 Next, counsel considers whether to retain one or more consulting experts to shield work product and attorney-expert communications.3