Dr Mumford has produced a comprehensive guide to aspiring medicolegal experts which is thought provoking and essential reading for any practitioner in the medicolegal process. He has covered all main problems and possible pitfalls encountered when a doctor is instructed as an expert, pointed out ways to avoid embarrassment or worse, highlighted the mindset likely to be encountered in a court, whether from a judge or counsel, and given clear guidance on the personality types likely to be on parade, whether in the guise of the legal personnel or medical opponent.

From my standpoint as counsel there are several essential elements to consider whenever an expert is called for; some already covered, but a few need further highlighting.

Dr Mumford has modestly omitted to mention an essential quality in an expert witness which is either inherent or can be acquired. That quality is charm, which Dr Mumford, whom I have had the pleasure and privilege to call as an expert, has in buckets. Nothing goes down better with a court than an expert who can ‘strut his stuff’ with a disarming manner. When this is coupled with the obvious qualification—authority and confidence—the impact is almost unassailable.

Charm in this context means that the expert deals with an adverse medical opponent with reason and cool explanation as to why, in his opinion, his opposite number is wrong. Charm means not rising to baiting in any cross-examination; this wrong foots the baiter. Charm means that the court will like you and want your opinion to prevail. Only a very seasoned medical practitioner can get away with arrogantly retorting, ‘You impudent young puppy’ to a young barrister who rudely opened his cross-examination to a distinguished neurosurgeon: ‘Now, you understand that you are here to tell the truth’. Far better for a doctor to smile ruefully and respond, ‘I believe that I do understand my duty to the legal process’.

Another area of great significance is the now mandatory meeting of adverse experts of like disciplines to produce a document of areas of agreement or disagreement. This can be a barrister's nightmare. Counsel has advised, pleaded and prepared a case based upon the firm, unwavering opinion of his expert. A meeting is held in person or by phone; the report is produced and both experts now appear to be holding hands and singing the same song. Counsel watches his case disappear into the sunset. It is up to counsel to advise, warn or cajole his expert before the joint meeting that the object of the exercise is not to find a compromise position, come what may, but to highlight genuine areas of agreement and thus, hopefully, narrow the issues in dispute. I have seen multi-party cases go down the Suwannee River because the experts did not fully comprehend their objective. If in doubt, ask counsel to provide an agreed agenda of issues and specific questions. If this has not been forthcoming, it should have been.

I would add to Dr Mumford's excellent piece: if in any doubt, ask for guidance on procedure or content from either counsel or your instructing solicitor. You cannot be told what to say or have your opinion impacted upon in any way; it has to be your opinion, but how to stay within your remit or whether to reference areas of background, treatment or even publications, may be areas upon which some guidance may be helpful. An experienced legal practitioner will ensure that you are ethically entirely within bounds whilst assisting with the structure of the report.

Finally you are there to assist the court, and it is a learning curve to understand fully how to be independent in your presentation whilst still being part of one team. The best way to achieve that is to present an honestly held opinion and stick to it.