On April 29, 2014, I presented with Attorney Joseph Callow and Attorney Ron Kravitz on the topic of case management and the use of experts. Having spoken several times at this relevant periodic conference about ERISA litigation for the American Conference Institute, I heard attorneys repeatedly emphasize the importance of good experts without ever going into much detail. As a result, I volunteered to develop this program and am appreciative of the time and knowledge of my esteemed panelists. Entitled "Expert Coordination: Working With Financial and Fiduciary Experts," the workshop consisted of a perspective from the defense, courtesy of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL partner, Joseph M. Callow. The plaintiff's view about the use of experts was presented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP partner, Attorney Ronald S. Kravitz. I offered comments from the perspective of someone who has served as a testifying expert, calculated damages and provided forensic analyses as a behind-the-scenes economist.
Notably, our individual observations about what makes for a smooth process were similar, including the reality of tight litigation budgets and the desires of corporate General Counsel or Litigation Counsel to avoid excessively large invoices. We gave multiple suggestions. For example, one way to keep costs in check is to engage an expert on an incremental analysis basis with each work segment tied to a limited scope. Another idea is for an expert and supporting number crunchers to put together a budget. This disciplined projection of time and related fees, created at the outset, allows counsel and expert to share expectations about what is needed and how much money it will take to accomplish those tasks. Moreover, if an insurance company has to approve defense costs, putting together a detailed budget can help to avoid delays. The creation of a budget is likewise a tool for deciding whether a litigator and/or expert can accept a flat fee for non-testimony work. If the scope of work is ill-defined, it will be harder for either counsel or expert or both to commit to a flat fee at the same time that corporate clients favor the flat fee approach.
We all agreed that the engaging attorney and his or her litigation team reap benefits when the expert provides suggestions about further data and document evaluation. In other words, the attorneys look to the expert to be pro-active and helpful with respect to fact gathering and subsequent assessment of said information. Working with an expert who is relatively easy-going as opposed to an individual with a "difficult" personality is a plus for the legal team.
Timing matters too. If an expert is hired early on, he or she can make recommendations during discovery. If the expert is engaged too late in the process and discovery has ended, that expert's report could be adversely impacted in terms of completeness.
Attorney Callow repeatedly urged litigators to do their homework when selecting an expert. Attorney Kravitz talked about the high price tag of having to replace an expert, once hired, in the event of poor quality work. In reply to my question about the use of lawyers as fiduciary experts, both gentlemen said that judges may not be receptive to having an attorney testify. If an attorney is needed, the better approach is to have that person serve as a consultant.
Click to access the April 29, 2014 slides for our session about the use of financial and fiduciary experts for ERISA litigation matters. Click here to read "Tips From the Experts: Working Effectively With A Financial Expert Witness" by Dr. Susan Mangiero and published by the American Bar Association.