Re: CHP Code of Ethics

["Michael P. Grissom" <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

I believe that it is unrealistic in the modern litigation
scheme in the US to not expect some form of compensation.
Essentially since virtually all expert witnesses are now
compensated (at least in California).  For an ethical
witness, being compensated at a reasonable rate will not
impact the value or tenor of the presentation.  That value
or tenor might, of course, determine whether the plaintiff 
or the defense considers you to be their witness!

As Al indicated earlier, George's number d. would be most
consistent with trial experience to date (whether it is
more "ethical" or not is up to the community to decide).  
When you consider the large amount of "waiting around" 
time for testifying, in many cases some considerable time 
in building the presentation brief, etc., some compensation 
is not unreasonable (probably at a higher rate than the jury 
gets, but then as a juror you don't get much...).

Options b and c have the lawyer analog of "ambulance chaser"!

For option d, the lawyer analog is "public defender"!

For option a, safest by far in case you haven't seen the
cross-examination process in action lately, is the "head
in the sand" approach.

There is more than just "truth" involved in the litigation
process.  Isn't it more useful to have a reasonably accurate
consensus position from competent members of the technical 
specialty community (say Rick or George as CHPs) presented 
than just a non-consensus position provided by a few 
"fringe" players?  How many cases, as tax/rate payers are 
we willing to accept losses on for unsubstantiated (or 
"reasonable doubt") reasons?

Just an opinion...

At 11:26 AM 10/9/95 -0500, you wrote:
>None of the below choices are appropriate.  Whether we like 
>it or not, response in this matter cannot be a choice based 
>upon compensation.  The testimony that we offer has to based 
>upon the truth as we know it and as we best understand it.  
>Our time is perhaps quite valuable, but I just can't see 
>anything that is ethical about entering into a legal battle 
>...
>*****************
>J. M. Sills
>_____________________________________________________
>>...
>>a.   Refuse the offer because it is in violation of the Standards 
>>     for Professional Conduct for CHPs
>>b.   Refuse and counter offer for an amount equal to half of the 
>>     attorney's contingency fee
>>c.   Accept the offer - it's a fair deal
>>d.   Refuse the offer because it is unethical and counter to 
>>     accept the work for an hourly rate or fixed fee."
>>          
>>Based on your reading of the Standards for Professional Conduct 
>>are any of these four responses unethical?
>>          
>>          George J. Vargo
>>          gj_vargo@pnl.gov
-----------------------
Michael P. Grissom
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone:  (415) 926-2346
Fax:    (415) 926-3030