Report comment

Sir, The medico-legal industry is precisely that, and as with any industry those who wish to prosper within it seek to 'give the customer what they want'. And what the customer, generally the claimant solicitor, wants is a favourable report, with a lengthy prognosis, to maximise their clients damages (and now their own fees).

I manage the business affairs of a small medico-legal practice. I have had the same parting conversation with claimant solicitors more times than I care to remember. And it goes something like this "Mark, your service levels are great, and the reports Dr X produces are very professional, very thorough, and very well reasoned. However, Dr Y down the road gives far greater recovery periods, so we're sending all our work to him now." To think this doesn't happen, even with 'mainstream' firms, is naive.

And there is no 'regulation' of doctors/experts in this regard - there is an expert in Manchester of 20 years standing who is well known for 'guaranteeing' minimum recovery periods in his reports (when once challenged by my partner, his response was "What can they do, I just say that's my opinion and I stick to it"). There is absolutely nothing in place to monitor the ethicality of expert witnesses, and to think otherwise is incorrect.

The 'joint instruction' procedure introduced a number of years ago could/should have acted in such a way as to reduce the bias shown by experts who were that way inclined. I've never quite understood why that process was allowed to fall by the wayside.