But the only reason he was on-site to observe the flooding was because he was acting in a professional capacity.
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.
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):
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.
With my level of expertise, I could only be a lay witness.