Photo: Valerie Reynoso, Comstock’s Business Magazines Vital Resource Vital Resource for Medical-Legal for Medical SOLUTIONS M EDICAL C ONSULTANTS July 2004 Volume 5, Issue 2 ETHICAL PROTOCOLS FOR DEALING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL AND WITNESSES BY LEO SCHUERING merican Board of Trial to violate the integrity of those practices expert witness should be scheduled Advocates, also known and procedures for the purpose of the at a mutually convenient time and A as ABOTA are the most matter for which he has been retained. place. Lawyers should readily experienced and highly regarded trial lawyers agree to depositions “after hours” or Various State Bars and Federal in the legal community. Membership in this at the expert’s office, if that is the District Courts have published guidelines preeminent least disruptive to the expert’s prac-for conducting ethical and civil discovery, organization tice. However, if the expert’s office including scheduling, subpoenas, ques-is by invita- is not large enough to accommo-tioning and compensating experts. Virtu-tion only to date the number of lawyers in a ally all agree with the following guide-the signifi- multiple party case, the expert lines: cantly ex- should readily agree to the deposi- perienced tion being held at a lawyer’s office, Scheduling who have hospital or other convenient loca- The lawyer should schedule an displayed tions. expert witness’ testimony at trial far skill, civility ► ETHICS, page 3 ...
ET H I C A L PR O T O C O L S FO R DE A L I N G WI T H OP P O S I N GCO U N S E L AN D WI T N E S S E SBY LE O SC H U E R I N Gmerican Board of Trialto violate the integrity of those practicesexpert witness should be scheduled Advocates, also knownand procedures for the purpose of theat a mutually convenient time and experiencedA andhighly regarded trial lawyersagree to depositions “after hours” or as ABOTA are the mostmatter for which he has been retained.place. Lawyersshould readily VariousState Bars and Federal in the legal community.Membership in thisat the expert’s office, if that is the District Courts have published guidelines preemi nentleast disruptive to the expert’s prac-for conducting ethical and civil discovery, organization tice.However, if the expert’s office including scheduling, subpoenas, ques-is by invita-is not large enough to accommo-tioning and compensating experts.Virtu-tion only todate the number of lawyers in a ally all agree with the following guide-the signifi-multiple party case, the expert lines: cantly ex-should readily agree to the deposi-p e r i e n c e dtion being held at a lawyer’s office, Scheduling who havehospital or other convenient loca- Thelawyer should schedule an d i s p l a y e dtions. expert witness’ testimony at trial far skill, civility enough in advance and in such a manner►ETHICS, page 3 and integ-as to minimize inconvenience to the ex-rity. pert and disruption of the expert’s prac-INSIDE THIS ISSUE: tice. The ABOTA Toavoid delays and unneces-Code of sary waiting at trial, the lawyer should try Profession-Consultant Profile2 to schedule an expert witness as the first alism to Leo Schuering,of Schuering,witness of the morning or afternoon ses-which all Zimmerman & Scully Law Firmbeing called “out ofsions. However, Investigation Services3 members of order” may disrupt a trial, inconvenience this prestigious organization presumably ad-other witnesses and interrupt the logical here sets forth ten guiding principals.First, a flow of evidence.Therefore, while the trial advocate must remember that the prac-Sacramento Claims2 expert is entitled to some estimate to the tice of law is first and foremost a profession Association amount of time needed for testimony, he and be respectful in his conduct towards his or she should be mindful that the attor-adversaries. ney has little control over the court’s August CME Cruise4 ABOTAhas published aCode of docket, the needs of other witnesses or Pretrial Conductserve as a guide for its to the opposing lawyer’s conduct or ques-members in particular and hopefully the legal tioning. Thesemay necessarily result in Insert Most Commonly profession in general.A lawyer should re-some delay in testimony or other incon-spect the integrity of an expert witness’ pro-Used Medical Terms venience to the expert. fession, practices and procedures and should Similarly,the deposition of an refrain from asking or encouraging the expert
CO N S U L T A N T PR O F I L EWilliam McMullen Jr., Ph.D. Neuropsychology
We are pleased to profile William J. McMullen, Jr., Ph.D., Board Certified Clinical Neuropsychologist. Dr. McMullen graduated from Wayne State University in December 1993 with a doctorate in Clinical Psychol-ogy, and a specialty area in Neuropsychology. He completed his postdoctoral fellowship in Neuropsy-chology over the next two years at the Neuropsychiat-ric Institute and Hospital of the UCLA Center for the Health Sciences in Los Angeles. He worked for two years as a staff Neuro-psychologist with the NYU Epilepsy center in Manhattan before moving to the bay area to work with an adult brain injury rehabilitation center in 1997. He continues to work with the rehabilitation center and opened his private prac-tice in 1998. Dr. McMullen conducts comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations of adult patients with a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions. He is the Neuropsychologist for the Pacific Epilepsy Program and the Movement Disorders Program at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco. He performs neuropsychological and psychological assessments of patients with stroke, head injury, brain tumor, attention deficit disorder, learning disability and other neurological and psychiatric disorders. He con-ducts neuropsychological and psychological evaluations in civil and criminal forensic contexts and has given lectures in the use of motivational assess-ment in Neuropsychological testing. Dr. McMullen is Board Certified in Clini-cal Neuropsychology through the American Board of Professional Psychol-ogy. He is a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) in the State of California and is a member of the American Epilepsy Society, the International Neuropsy-chological Society and the American Psychological Association.
SA C R A M E N T O CL A I M SNew Location for Monthly Meetings July 8th was Sacramento Claims Association last meeting at Luau Gardens.Beginning August 12ththe meetings will be held at Cattlemen's Restaurant in Rancho Cordova. Their address is:12409 Folsom Blvd. Rancho Cordova, 916-985-3030. Cattlemen’s has abanquet room that holds 60 people, and two rooms that can be opened up into one room which will hold up to 130. Cost Sid Lamb, JDof per person is $15.00 for members and $20.00 Laughlin, Falbo, Levy for non-members. & MoresiJULY’S SPEAKER Sacramento Claims featuredSidney Lamb,JDof Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi law firm on July 8th at Luau Gardens. Topic of discussion:Changes in California Workers’ Compensation Law. More information can be found at: www.SacramentoClaims.org
Significance of a Subpoena ASubpoena is an order of Court that may be issued by a lawyer compelling a witness to appear at the time and place stated in the Subpoena.A Subpoena duces tecum (Subpoena to produce) requires a witness to appear and pro-duce things or documents.Subpoenas may be issued for deposition or trial testimony. Notonly professional courtesy but the reputation of the expert witness and the safety of his or her patients or cli-ents’ demands that a lawyer not abuse the Subpoena power. Whileevery reasonable attempt should be made to accom-modate the expert witness, it must be understood by the expert that he or she does not always have the right to choose the time and place to give testimony.Like any other witness, the expert summoned to Court by Subpoena must appear at the time and place so designated.However, it must constantly be stressed that a lawyer should never abuse the use of a Sub-poena and should always recognize the potentially disruptive effect it could have on an expert’s practice, if reasonable ar-rangements have not been made in advance to have the wit-ness set aside the time. Atthe time the expert witness’ testimony is scheduled, the lawyer should discuss with the expert the need for service of a Subpoena, and the manner in which the Subpoena should be served.Personal service can be disruptive to the expert’s office and embarrassing to the expert.Private process servers should be instructed by the lawyer concerning tactful and dis-creet service of a Subpoena. Similarly,an expert witness should never seek to evade service of a Subpoena so as to avoid having to testify. That is beneath the dignity of the expert, substantially increases litigation costs, obstructs the administration of justice and can result in eventual embarrassment to the expert when service is finally accomplished. Compensation Anexpert witness should be fairly compensated for all work on behalf of the client.Compensation, or the amount of compensation, cannot be contingent in any way upon the sub-stance of the expert’s opinions or the outcome of the matter for which the expert has been retained. Ifthe subject of testimony arises out an individual’s role or status as an expert witness, he or she is entitled to an expert witness fee.The use of a Subpoena to compel an ex-pert’s presence at a deposition, hearing or trial does not in any way affect the expert’s entitlement to such an expert witness fee. Ifno prior agreement is reached as to the amount of a fee, the expert witness may bill the lawyer for a reasonable expert witness fee for attending pursuant to a Subpoena.If a disagreement arises over the entitlement to such a fee, or the amount requested, that dispute may be submitted to the Court.
specialist 1.800.458.1261
Deposition Questioning Alawyer should not intentionally ask a witness a ques-tion that misstates or mis-characterizes the witness’ previous answer. Alawyer should not repeatedly ask the same or sub-stantially identical question of a deponent if the question has already been asked and fully and responsibly answered by the deponent. Itis presumptively improper to ask questions clearly beyond the scope of discovery permitted, particularly of a per-sonal nature, and to continue to do so after objection should be evidence that the deposition is being conducted in bad faith or unreasonably, so as to annoy, embarrass or oppress the depo-nent or party, which is prohibited by many guidelines and specifi-cally by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3). Whilethe interrogation of the deponent is in progress, neither a lawyer nor the deponent should initiate a private con-versation except for the purpose of determining whether privilege should be asserted.To do so otherwise is presumptively im-proper. Conclusion Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the lawyer for whom the expert witness is appearing to control the proceedings such that intentional efforts to annoy, embarrass, wear down or inten-tionally Subpoena experts during a disruptive time, such as a vacation or family event, are avoided or minimized. References American College of Trial Lawyers.Code of Pre-Trial Conduct.Colorado Bar Association. Discovery Guidelines of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
IN V E S T I G A T I O N SE R V I C E Senchmark is now providing administrative support to R.B. Smoke & Associates. This new service will en-ConBsultant,has over 38 years of adjusting and investigative hance the range of specialties available to Bench-mark clients. Robert Smoke, R.P.A., a Benchmark experience. During his professional years he has developed an expertise in all manners of liability and casualty claims, work-ers’ compensation and medical malpractice investigations, along with extensive work in public entity claims and pre-trial investigations for defensecounsels. Smoke is licensed as a private investigator,and handles S.I.U. investigations, includ-ing surveillance, for several clients. You may request Smoke’s services bycalling Benchmark at 1.800.458.1261.