The recent Legaltech West Coast panel “Disruption: Five Forces Shaping the Legal Landscape has got people talking. The following were the highlights of this discussion:
- E-discovery – we can walk around the vendor circle and quickly note that E-discovery has become the biggest thing to hit the legal industry. However, this panel focused on the role of people in E-discovery. Clients are seizing control of the process and hiring dedicated teams solely for E-discovery. Now it’s not just about keeping the firm happy, but also making sure the client’s standards are met as well.
- No surprise that this disruption also concerns E-discovery, however, the second point is about the ever-changing technology. The way that data is collected is evolving and there’s got to be a point when you decide how much information is too much. Data has to be complete, but “relevant and proportional” at the same time.
- Another major disruption comes in the form of education, technology and attorneys. Federal rules now state that an attorney is held responsible for being “familiar with the dangers and the benefits with technology”. This issue has trickled down to law schools who must now integrate e-discovery and technology into all courses and curriculum.
- Money and form of payment has caused quite a disruption in recent years. Clients have their own ideas about pricing and firms need to adjust.
- Globalization of industries has given law firms a wider scope of issues to consider. Different languages, views, foreign laws and technology all play a role in a case and all factors must be dealt with.
For more information, visit Legaltech News.
Hon. Philip Cortese, a New York judge was recently reviewed on Courtroom Insight. This judge was rated 1.0 out of 5.0 in every category (legal ability, objectivity and impartiality, communication skills and demeanor). Here’s an excerpt of the review:
Judge Cortese has consistently shown a pattern of ruling in a manner preventing one from receiving full, fair, or impartial treatment.
Mr. Cortese faihfully does not adhere to the oath he took for office nor does he pursue justice. The problem here is nobody will stand up to him publicly or they are put at great risk if they ever have to appear in front of him again.
The most critical component of a challenge to expert witness testimony is arguably the disposition, or outcome of the challenge. In an effort to better understand trends in how judges rule on whether to allow experts to testify given specific challenges to qualifications, methodology, etc., we have summarized challenge outcomes into the following categories:
- Testimony admitted
- Testimony excluded or partially excluded
- Testimony relied upon or given significant weight
- Testimony not relied upon or given little weight
- Unknown or not categorized
In summary, over 27% of Daubert challenges were successful. An additional 7% of cases resulted in testimony that was ignored or given little weight. Future blog posts will further examine this critical information by profession and by jurisdiction.
Each of the challenge records in our database contains one of the listed summary outcomes in addition to other pertinent information such as case caption and citation, parties, counsel, area of law and more. The full text of judicial opinions is also available directly from each record. Users who purchase Individual Subscriptions to Courtroom Insight are able to instantly analyze expert witness challenge activity for specific experts and judges.
Learn more about Expert Witness Challenge Data at Courtroom Insight.
We are already receiving lots of positive feedback about our new judicial opinions. Here is one example excerpt that shows why these references are so valuable:
The individuals proffered as experts by plaintiff are incompetent to testify on this subject and their affidavits are conclusory and speculative. Furthermore, the affidavits fail to satisfy the evidentiary standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals…. Here, Mr. [EXPERT] and Mr. [EXPERT] do not meet the threshold requirement of admissibility because they are not experts on the issue of useful safe life. Plaintiff must show that Mr. [EXPERT]’s and Mr. [EXPERT]’s findings are based on sound science, which in turn requires some objective, independent validation of the methodology used. Here plaintiff has made no such showing. Plaintiff’s affidavits fail to explain the methods and procedures used in reaching the conclusion that the useful life of a properly maintained Bell 206 B II helicopter is indefinite. In addition, no external source is cited to validate methodology. The opinions seem to be based on subjective beliefs and unsupported speculation. In sum, the “expert” affidavits relied upon by plaintiff are conclusory, speculative and inadmissible under the standards set forth in Daubert.
Courtroom Insight currently has nearly 6,000 judicial opinions, with new ones being added every day. Please visit our Opinions page to learn more.
Courtroom Insight is excited to announce our new graphical interface that analyzes captured challenges for each expert and judge in our database. Over 110,000 challenge records are summarized and organized by expert and by judge. Our new charts graphically display challenges based upon four key metrics:
- Area of Law
Subscribers can now easily analyze cases at a glance, in addition to getting detailed facts about specific case and published judicial opinions. Learn more on our Challenge Data page.
We are pleased to announce that over 5,000 published quotes about expert witness performance are now available on Courtroom Insight. Our new “Opinions” tab displays insights into exactly what Federal and State judges think about testimony in particular cases. This information is critical for professionals performing due diligence on experts. One example demonstrates the usefulness of this content:
Our team of researchers continue to methodically review published judicial opinions for additional relevant quotes. We anticipate tens of thousands more quotes to be added in the coming year. All quotes are available via a Courtroom Insight review subscription. Learn more on our new Opinions page.
Individual subscriptions are available for $99 (24-hour access) or $399 annually.
Courtroom Insight’s recent reviews seem to highlight lack of professionalism. Ratings are low citing biases from judges and unreliability of expert witnesses. An excerpt taken from a review of a forensic toxicologist says:
Zero professional skills… It would have been acceptable for her to refuse the consultation initially and allow me to seek another toxicologist, but instead gave assurances without foundation.
An excerpt from a review of a Texas Judge reads:
She does not rule according to law.
To share one of your legal experiences, simply create an account on Courtroom Insight. Each review of an expert witness, mediator, arbitrator or judge takes less than 3 minutes and can be submitted anonymously.