Posted on 02/22/2005 5:11:05 PM PST by neverdem
agreed; however, my original point was supposed to be that, even when the defendant ultimately wins, it's the "expert's" opinion that is the hot air in the sails of the suit, driving it forward through the long discovery process, costing mega-bucks, which do not show up in the agitprop analysis in the NYT piece. Therefore, if the expert witness could be scared off, the suit would not get started.
The verdict doesn't always depend on the expert testimony. And at least on the defense side, the experts don't get rich off of testifying. Maybe they do if they do plaintiffs' work, but again, that's all part of the contigency fee system, which greatly benefits lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.