Expert Finders/Hunters

     Should you use an “Expert Finder/Hunter”?  I would really like to know if this is a common or unusual practice with my newsletter readers.  Please give me your input by emailing me.

     As for me, I will give you some recent experiences and my opinion.  A few weeks ago, I received an e-mail explaining that a large,  well known law firm in Georgia needed a “truck seat design expert”.  It was preferred that the expert have 20 years of “truck seat design” experience and/or a “M.S. in truck seat design”!

     My first response was, "this is ridiculous"!  My second response was “I really don’t think such a person exists”, but in this age of Daubert challenges, I understand the “thinking” behind the request.  I replied that the request was far too specific, and in my opinion, it was far too early in the litigation to be that specific in looking for such a narrowly defined expert.  In my estimation, the first task is to investigate the accident and failure.  Did the truck seat fail due to a manufacturing defect , i.e., stress riser, improper manufacture, improper heat treatment, etc.?  Did the truck seat fail at a structural joint or anchor point which indeed might point in the direction of a design defect?  Or, since the truck driver and his seat experienced massive trauma due to another vehicle intruding into the driver compartment, was this just plain overload!

     These are the types of questions which can be answered by a competent, experienced metallurgical engineer (possibly in conjunction with a competent, experienced mechanical engineer).  In my opinion, the attorney and the person conducting the "expert search" had become too focused, too soon.  Yes, a “truck seat design expert” might,  (at some stage in the future) be necessary, but is he/she capable of conducting a competent metallurgical evaluation of the seat frame?  Does he/she have a good jury presence, i.e., can he/she communicate to attorneys and a jury?

     For some cases, maybe you do need an expert who has 20 years experience studying the “nit on the eye of the gnat”.  In my experience, an expert with such a focused career is not only “as rare as hen's teeth”, but probably is not necessary.

     This brings me around to cost, interaction and longer term association.  In my experiences, most of these “head hunters” want “a part of the action” for "finding" the expert, i.e., they add a percentage to the expert's hourly rate and expenses.  Frankly, expert witness hourly rates are already very high.  I have NEVER had a client “complain” that I charged too little!  Why would any attorney want to pay an additional 20 to 40% on top of my normal rate?  Why would I want my invoice  to be filtered and billed through a “head hunter” organization (and wait for payment thereof)?  If a client has questions about the quality and/or quantity of my work, I am happy to discuss the matter with him/her, and have on rare occasions made “reasonable” adjustments.  It is my understanding that when working through an “expert finder” such adjustments are impossible (or at least require the concurrence of the finder). 

     Much of my current work is “repeat” or “referral”.  Many times I am referred to someone else in the attorney’s firm.  If I work through an "expert finder", any repeat or referral attorney work that comes through the original referral is subject to an "extended finders fee" of 10% to 20%.  Why would I subject myself to such conditions?  Probably only if I REALLY needed work!  Is that the type of expert that a competent attorney, in a large law firm really wants?

     Well, as you might guess, I excluded myself from consideration.  But again, why would a large law firm, well staffed with very competent and experienced attorneys engage an “Expert Finder/Head Hunter” firm to locate an expert?  I suggest they try a Google search for “metallurgical expert witness”, “mechanical engineering expert”.  If they really do want such an intense focus, then a search for “truck seat expert witness” might be appropriate.