Choosing the Right Expert Witness: Why Training and Accountability Matter in Legal Cases
The work of expert witnesses can feel like walking a tightrope. You’re there to inform, not advocate, and to support the court in reaching a fair decision, not to ‘win’ a case. And when that line is crossed, intentionally or not, the consequences can be damaging not just to the case itself, but to the integrity of the legal system, and to the trust the public places in it.
A recent case in which a wrongly convicted surgeon called expert witnesses the “weakest link” in the justice system certainly invites reflection, but also raises one question: are we looking in the right place when things go wrong?
In my experience, the strength of expert witness testimony comes not only from the expert’s training, experience and integrity, but also relies on how the expert is chosen, instructed and supported.
Not all experts are the same
The role of 'expert witness' is often misunderstood as a generic designation, but expertise takes a process. Being clinically experienced in a field doesn’t automatically make someone a good aesthetic or medical expert witness. Knowing how to treat complications from dermal fillers doesn’t mean you can explain causation and consent in a way that stands up under cross-examination, and certainly doesn’t mean you have a clear understanding of legal duties.
Good expert witness work demands clarity, impartiality and especially knowing the boundaries of your expertise, which isn’t something you learn overnight, and also it is not something that happens without proper training.
Every system has its flaws. But there are structured training programmes, like those offered by Bond Solon, that exist for a reason. Each expert is responsible for making sure they’re up to date and legally literate. Having said that, it’s also the solicitor’s responsibility to do their research and choose carefully instead of assuming any medical professional will do.
The solicitor-expert relationship is a two-way street
I’ve worked on cases where the solicitor has been thorough in providing all the relevant records, asking focused questions, clarifying exactly what’s needed from the report. When you’re given the tools to offer an opinion based on facts and not your assumptions, it’s easier to do a good job. You can stick to your area of expertise and feel confident the report will serve the court, not the claimant or defendant.
On the other hand, if the solicitor gives instructions asking for opinions outside the expert witness’ scope or misses important documents, it can compromise the entire legal process.
Solicitors should always verify qualifications, ask about training, and make sure the expert witness understands the legal framework they’re operating within. Good communication and mutual respect are important, together with the understanding that expert witnesses aren’t there to fix a case, but to provide clarity based on evidence.
Training shouldn’t be optional
There’s growing pressure for regulation in aesthetics in the UK, and rightly so. I believe this should also apply to medico-legal work. You wouldn’t want a non-medical injector treating a complication, and you shouldn’t want an untrained expert commenting on one in court.
Experts who are qualified, independent, and trained in the specifics of the legal process protect patients, defendants, and claimants alike. When solicitors and expert witnesses work in partnership the result is stronger evidence, fairer outcomes, and a legal system the public can trust. And that benefits everyone.