What an expert owes the court

How we work

Independence, and selective investigation

Medico-legal work exists in a structure that invites bias: one party instructs, one party pays, and both would prefer a particular conclusion. The rule that makes expert evidence worth anything is that the duty runs to the court instead, which means an opinion that disappoints the instructing solicitor is the system working rather than failing.

The same discipline applies in clinic, in a quieter way. Private practice is paid per investigation, so the incentive runs toward testing broadly, and broad testing reliably produces incidental findings that generate worry, follow-up and more tests. Ordering only what would change a decision costs revenue and is the correct clinical position.

Second opinions deserve honesty of a third kind. Patients arrive hoping for a different answer, and most second opinions confirm the first. Saying so clearly, without manufacturing disagreement to look authoritative, is more useful than the alternative and considerably kinder.