Maintaining Professional Independence
An expert’s primary responsibility is to provide an independent and objective opinion within their area of expertise. This responsibility takes priority over the interests of the solicitor, agency or party responsible for the instruction.
The expert is not a member of the legal team and should not act as an advocate for either side. Their role is to assess the available evidence fairly and explain their conclusions clearly, including any limitations or uncertainties.
Medical experts must also comply with their professional and regulatory obligations. They should act honestly, impartially and within the limits of their competence. The expert should be able to explain the clinical evidence, assumptions and reasoning that support every important conclusion.
A useful test is whether the expert would give the same opinion if instructed by another party on the same evidence. If the answer is no, the demands of the case may be influencing the expert’s professional judgment.
Appropriate and Inappropriate Requests
Not every suggested amendment is improper. A solicitor may identify an incorrect date, a misunderstanding of the accident circumstances, missing medical records or language that is difficult to understand. They may also ask the expert to address a relevant issue that has been overlooked.
Changes intended to improve the report’s factual accuracy, clarity, completeness or relevance are appropriate. However, decisions concerning diagnosis, causation, prognosis and treatment remain the responsibility of the expert.
The reason for a requested change is therefore important. Correcting an inaccurate description of an accident is legitimate. Removing relevant pre-existing symptoms because they weaken the claim is not.
Similarly, clarifying the reasoning behind a prognosis may improve the report. Extending that prognosis solely because the original period is unlikely to support the desired level of compensation would compromise the expert’s independence.
The final report must always remain the expert’s own work and accurately reflect their professional opinion.
Responding to a Challenge
When a solicitor challenges an opinion, the expert should consider the request carefully, rather than if every disagreement amounts to improper pressure.
The solicitor may have identified a genuine mistake or may possess relevant information that was not available when the report was prepared. Additional records, imaging, witness evidence or clarification of the accident circumstances should be reviewed objectively.
An expert may properly revise an opinion where new evidence supports a different conclusion. Changing an opinion for a valid clinical or evidential reason is a sign of objectivity, not weakness.
However, dissatisfaction with an opinion is not evidence. Repeated requests for a more favourable conclusion do not provide a medical basis for changing it.
Where the expert remains satisfied with the original opinion, this should be explained calmly and professionally. The expert may acknowledge the concern while confirming that the conclusion remains unchanged because no new evidence has been provided.
A firm and reasoned response is usually more effective than defensive or confrontational language.
Keeping an Accurate Record
Potentially inappropriate requests should be documented. If pressure is applied during a telephone call or conference, the expert should make a contemporaneous note and consider confirming the substance of the discussion in writing.
This may become important if there is later disagreement about why wording was changed, whether information was omitted or who suggested a particular amendment.
Version control is also essential. Draft reports should be dated and stored securely so that significant changes and the reasons for them can be identified.
Administrative staff, agencies and legal representatives should not alter clinical reasoning, diagnoses or conclusions without the expert’s knowledge and approval. Any proposed change must be reviewed and accepted by the expert before the report is issued.
The purpose of keeping records is not to document every minor correction. It is to ensure that material amendments can be explained and that the integrity of the report is protected.
Pressure Caused by Deadlines
Pressure may relate to timing rather than the substance of an opinion. An expert may be asked to complete a report urgently despite not having received all relevant records or sufficient information.
Deadlines are important, but they do not justify an inadequately considered opinion. Where instructions are unclear, records are missing or the timescale is unrealistic, the expert should raise the issue promptly.
The solicitor should be told what information is required, why it matters and whether the missing material prevents a final opinion from being reached.
In some circumstances, it may be possible to provide a provisional opinion, provided the limitations are clearly explained. In other cases, the report should not be finalised until the necessary evidence has been obtained.
The expert should not allow pressure to meet a deadline to result in speculation, unsupported conclusions or the omission of significant uncertainty.
Financial Pressure
An expert’s fee should not depend on the value of the claim, the content of the opinion or the success of the case. Any arrangement that rewards a favourable conclusion creates an obvious risk to independence.
Experts may also experience indirect commercial pressure where a large volume of future instructions appears to depend upon producing opinions that regularly support the instructing party.
The possibility of losing future work must not influence the evidence. An expert who changes an opinion to protect a commercial relationship places both their professional reputation and the reliability of their reports at risk.
A well-run expert practice should have clear terms of engagement, transparent fees and procedures for dealing with attempts to influence professional opinions.
Genuine Changes of Opinion
Experts are not expected to defend an earlier conclusion when later evidence shows that it was wrong. A genuine change of opinion may arise from new medical records, further imaging, additional research or recognition of an error in the original analysis.
The reason for the change should be recorded clearly. The expert should identify the new information and explain how it affected the previous reasoning.
An earlier opinion should not be concealed simply because it became inconvenient. Transparency about why a conclusion changed is far more defensible than attempting to present the revised view as though no earlier opinion existed.
Discussions With Other Experts
Professional independence must also be maintained during discussions with another expert. Solicitors may help identify the issues that require consideration, but they should not instruct an expert to avoid agreement or preserve a disagreement for tactical reasons.
The purpose of an expert discussion is to identify the genuine areas of agreement and disagreement. Each expert must reach their own conclusions and ensure that any joint statement accurately reflects their opinion.
An expert should not approve or sign a statement that has been amended in a way that misrepresents what they believe.
When Withdrawal May Be Necessary
Most concerns can be resolved through a clear explanation of the expert’s role and the maintenance of firm professional boundaries.
However, withdrawal may become necessary where a solicitor repeatedly demands misleading amendments, asks the expert to omit material evidence or attempts to interfere directly with the conclusions.
Withdrawal should not normally be the first response. The concern should be raised in writing, giving the instructing solicitor an opportunity to correct the position. The expert may also need advice from a medical defence organisation, indemnity provider, professional body or experienced legal adviser.
Ultimately, a solicitor is entitled to test an expert’s reasoning, but they cannot dictate the outcome. An unfavourable but independent opinion is professionally defensible. A favourable opinion produced under pressure is not.
