# Attorneys & Experts: Should I be miffed at this? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 14, 2007, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attorneys-experts-should-i-be-miffed-at-this/404066 "2007-05-14T17:51:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2007, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attorneys-experts-should-i-be-miffed-at-this/404066/21 "2007-05-15T21:22:58Z")
But the only reason he was on-site to observe the flooding was because he was acting in a professional capacity. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attorneys-experts-should-i-be-miffed-at-this/404066/22 "2007-05-16T00:39:06Z")
[QUOTE=Asimovian] **Jodi** (and other attorneys), based on post #16, is it possible that the attorney in this case _might_ be planning to call **NinetyWt** purely to provide fact-based testimony without asking for his professional opinion? And if so, would the attorney still be obligated to provide expert witness fees? Granted, this seems like an unlikely strategy, but I am curious. [/QUOTE] Assuming that she went and looked at the property in a professional capacity as a retained expert, then she’s an expert, not a fact witness. An attempt to use her as an uncompensated fact witness would be nothing more than an attempt to screw her out of her fees, and I can’t imagine any attorney doing it. But an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client, and it is not clear from **90 Wt’s** posts how specific and clear they were about her role or her compensation before she started the work. (No criticism implied, it’s just not clear from the posts.) So I certainly would NOT say that it’s NOT possible the attorney is a complete snake in the grass. I would hope it is unlikely, however. She herself would probably have a cause of action against the attorney in that event. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attorneys-experts-should-i-be-miffed-at-this/404066/23 "2007-05-16T01:37:43Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] An attempt to use her as an uncompensated fact witness would be nothing more than an attempt to screw her out of her fees, and I can’t imagine any attorney doing it. [/QUOTE] Yep, and, were I the attorney, the following is the primary reason I’d pay the fee (a.k.a., not piss off my witness): > [@NinetyWt](#): > > **Chief Pedant** brings up another issue about this case which I want to clear up with this attorney, concerning some differences of opinion (mine vs. his) about the cause of the flooding - perhaps that is why I am uneasy about it to start with. I can see it turning out similarly to the case of the neck injury **Chief** mentioned. If there are differences of opinion between the lawyer and the expert, it’s best to talk those out _before_ the expert testifies, not while the witness is on the stand. But, if the lawyer’s not paying for the time, then the first time the lawyer will get to explore those differences, and whether they’re relevant, is in court. So I’d pay. ---
**Author:** ![DistendedPendulousFrenulum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@DistendedPendulousFrenulum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DistendedPendulousFrenulum)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2007, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attorneys-experts-should-i-be-miffed-at-this/404066/24 "2007-05-16T03:01:31Z")
With my level of expertise, I could only be a lay witness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attorneys-experts-should-i-be-miffed-at-this/404066.md?page=1)