Would this change your opinion of a journalist?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Let’s say that you found out that a journalist who covers the industry you work in had served as an expert witness in a lawsuit between two entities in the industry. I’ll stipulate that the journalist is generally well regarded, that the case in does not involve any of the industry’s major players, and does not involve significant controversial issues of concern to the industry.

Would you feel that the journalist’s integrity had been compromised? Would you conclude that he had sold out?

I ask because this is a position in which I could find myself. I cover a small industry and have been asked by one side in a lawsuit to provide my expert opinion about the issues in the case. I know that if I accept the offer, I will provide my honest and true opinion regardless of whether it helps that side or not. I will not agree to shape my report to conform to views I do not hold.

But I have to assume that people in my industry will learn that I participated in the case (indeed, if I ultimately report on the case I will disclose my participation myself), and I’m trying to judge whether most people would conclude that I had simply said what the side that paid me wanted me to say. If that’s the perception most people will have, then it would obviously be better for my reputation not to participate.

So I guess I’m asking for a measure of the level of cynicism these days. Do most people think that being an expert witness in a lawsuit means you’ve sold out?

Thanks for your opinions.

2

Paralegal-to-be checking in.

A sellout? No, not at all! You’re an expert on something, right? You shouldn’t cash in on this because ???

What does being a journalist have to do with testifying at a trial? You’re giving your professional opinion about something, you’re supposed to be biased.

I know that if I accept the offer, I will provide my honest and true opinion regardless of whether it helps that side or not.

Heh. That’s good, but if your opinion doesn’t help their side, you won’t be testifying.

I will not agree to shape my report to conform to views I do not hold.

I don’t think they would expect you to, because suborning perjury is A Very Bad Thing. However, in complex trials you can find an expert that really does hold the opinion that you want the jury to hear. It’s not that the experts are lying, it’s just that sometimes there really is room for debate because the issue doesn’t really have a clear cut answer. There’s no point in hiring someone who is going to tell the jury “yeah, my client’s wrong” when you can find someone who will in good faith say “my client’s right so give 'em some money.”

And then yes, you do have some expert witnesses who sell their testimony to the highest bidder and will say whatever you tell them to say. In my experience this is more of a problem with ambulance chasers, though. I’ve seen some lawyers basically just keep a doctor retained to review records and come in and say what they want 'em to say: for a very generous consulting fee, of course.

I don’t think all expert witnesses are prostitutes, though. Ultimately, however, you’ve gotta realize that expert witnesses are there to say what the people hired them want them to say, and they are being paid to do it. Are most honest? I think so. But you can’t ignore the fact that they are working for the lawyers.

One of my law teachers told me that expert witnesses who testify exclusively as Plaintiff’s or Defense witnesses are seen by juries as more honest than expert witnesses who have testified for both sides, depending on the case. I still haven’t figured out why this is. I would be more likely to trust the latter, personally.

I think you oughta do it. If you can testify without censoring your true opinions, who cares what other people think? You’ll know the truth, and I don’t see how testifying would have any bearing on you as a journalist.

3

Thanks for your reply, Abbie. In my only conversation with the attorney so far, she downplayed the idea that it would even come to trial. For now I’m just being asked to write a report in response to reports written by the other side’s experts.

I have a question that maybe you can help me with (although I am going to talk with my own lawyer tomorrow). When one side gets a written report from an expert, do they have to make it available in its totality to the other side, or can they edit it? Or if my report is not 100% supportive of their case, will they just toss it in the trash and start looking for another expert?

As for why being a journalist is relevant, it’s because a journalist’s reputation for impartiality is essentially his only real asset. If 90% of people assume that a journalist who testified for one side in a lawsuit is for sale to the highest bidder, he’s not likely to be taken seriously from that point on.

I wouldn’t mind the money they’re offering, but taking it might cost me too much if my reputation is damaged.