Withdrawal may be the correct decision. Accepting an instruction, however, does not give an expert an unrestricted right to leave whenever a case becomes inconvenient or difficult. An expert can withdraw after accepting a case, but the decision should have a proper professional basis. It must also be communicated promptly and managed in a way that avoids unnecessary delay, duplicated work and expense.
Acceptance is not an irreversible commitment.
Circumstances can change after an instruction has been accepted, new records may reveal that the central issue falls outside the expert’s competence. A previously unknown relationship may create a conflict of interest. Illness may prevent the expert from completing the report or attending an arranged meeting. The volume of records may be far greater than originally described, making the agreed deadline unrealistic.
The instructions themselves may also change. What began as a straightforward assessment of a soft-tissue injury may develop into a complex neurological, psychiatric or chronic-pain case. Continuing in those circumstances may be less responsible than withdrawing.
The expert should notify the instructing party as soon as a problem becomes apparent and waiting until the report deadline has passed may leave insufficient time to instruct somebody else and, may disrupt the progress of the claim.
A conflict does not always require withdrawal.
A newly discovered conflict should be disclosed immediately, but it does not automatically prevent the expert from continuing.
Medicine is a relatively small professional community. Experts may know another practitioner, have worked at the same hospital or have attended the same professional meetings. A remote professional connection may be manageable once it has been explained fully.
A continuing financial relationship, close personal connection or substantial previous involvement with the claimant or defendant may be different. Such a relationship could call the expert’s independence into question, even where the expert genuinely believes that it has not influenced the opinion. The expert should describe the connection factually and allow the instructing party to consider its significance. The expert should not decide privately that the relationship is too minor to disclose.
Where the conflict cannot be managed through transparency, withdrawal may be necessary.
When the case exceeds the expert’s competence.
The true complexity of a case is not always apparent at the outset. A general practitioner may accept an instruction concerning uncomplicated neck and back symptoms, only for the records to reveal persistent neurological features. A psychologist may discover that the central questions require specialist neuropsychological knowledge. An orthopaedic expert may be asked to comment upon significant psychiatric symptoms outside their field.
Withdrawal may not be necessary if the instruction can be narrowed. The expert may complete the parts falling within their competence while recommending evidence from another discipline.
Where the main issue lies outside the expert’s expertise, however, continuing simply because work has already begun is difficult to justify. An expert should be able to explain why they are qualified to answer each material question. Familiarity with a neighbouring subject is not always sufficient.
Pressure to alter an opinion.
An expert should not withdraw merely because their opinion is unhelpful to the person who instructed them.
The expert may conclude that the accident did not cause the alleged condition, that the prognosis is shorter than claimed or that the records do not support the reported level of disability. Those conclusions may be inconvenient, but inconvenience is not a reason to abandon the instruction.
Solicitors may properly ask the expert to correct factual mistakes, clarify confusing language or address a question that has been overlooked. They should not pressure the expert to change a genuine professional opinion simply because it weakens the claim.
If inappropriate pressure continues, the expert should explain that the requested amendment cannot be made. Where the working relationship has become incompatible with independent evidence, withdrawal may then be justified.
It should not be used as a means of hiding an unfavourable report.
The stage reached still matters.
Withdrawal is easier to manage before the claimant has been examined or substantial work has been completed. Another expert may be instructed with limited disruption, although cancellation fees or contractual obligations may still apply.
The position becomes more difficult once the claimant has attended an examination, the report has been prepared, or the parties have begun relying upon the expert’s views. Withdrawal at that stage may lead to a repeated assessment, further expense and delay.
Timing does not prevent withdrawal where it has become professionally necessary. It does mean that the reason should be serious and communicated without delay.
The expert should provide enough information for the instructing party to understand the problem and decide what should happen next. They should not simply stop responding to emails or allow deadlines to pass without explanation.
Withdrawal does not erase completed work.
An expert may have already produced a draft or final report before deciding that they can no longer continue.
The report should not be treated as though it never existed. The instructing party may need to understand why the expert is withdrawing, whether the opinion remains valid and whether any further evidence has caused the expert’s view to change. If new records have altered the opinion, a correction or supplementary explanation may be more appropriate than withdrawal. The expert should identify the new information; explain why it affects the earlier reasoning and state the revised position clearly.
Changing an opinion in response to better evidence is not a professional failure. Refusing to explain the change may create a greater problem.
Illness, workload and practical difficulties.
Experts are not immune from illness, family emergencies or unexpected professional demands and a temporary difficulty does not always require withdrawal. An extension of time, rearranged appointment or revised reporting date may resolve the problem.
The expert should nevertheless be realistic. Repeatedly accepting work that cannot be completed within the agreed period may become a professional and administrative concern. If the expert knows that illness or workload will prevent proper completion, early withdrawal may be fairer than repeated promises that cannot be kept.
The quality of the report should not be sacrificed merely to meet an unrealistic deadline.
Non-payment and contractual issues.
An expert’s appointment creates a contractual relationship as well as a professional one. Fees, payment dates, cancellation arrangements and the scope of the work should be agreed at the beginning.
Persistent non-payment may justify suspending work or ending the instruction. The expert should raise the issue early and provide reasonable warning before withdrawing.
Leaving the case immediately before an agreed deadline because an old invoice remains unpaid may create avoidable difficulty, particularly where the payment issue was allowed to continue without being addressed. Clear terms at the outset make this situation less likely.
Withdrawal should be principled.
An expert may properly withdraw where a conflict of interest, lack of competence, ill health, improper pressure or another genuine obstacle makes continued involvement unsafe or impossible. They should not withdraw because the case has become complicated, the opinion is unfavourable or further questioning may be uncomfortable. Nor should withdrawal be used to avoid correcting an error.
The expert should first consider whether the difficulty can be resolved through clearer instructions, further information, revised deadlines or a narrower scope of work.
The right question is not simply, “Can I leave this case?”
It is, “Can I still complete this instruction independently, competently and within a reasonable period?”
Where the answer is no, withdrawal may be the responsible course. It should still be handled promptly, transparently and with proper regard for the disruption it may cause.
