I REFER to Keith Wallis's report headlined, 'Legal Aid in row over expert', which appeared in the South China Morning Post, on August 21.
I have to say that the article reflects a lack of understanding of the issue and is poorly researched.
For example, lawyers from our department seldom require reports from safety experts to assist in determining whether legal aid should be granted to pursue a claim for damages for negligence.
I do, however, have some points to make which may be of interest to your readers regarding experts employed by the Legal Aid Department which, in this context, means experts from different disciplines other than the legal field. Experts provide vital evidence for a plaintiff both in regard to the issue of liability and to the quantum of damages. What we look for in an expert is: The required expertise.
The ability to produce a convincing and cogent report; and, The ability to give clear and unequivocal evidence in court, particularly in cross-examination.
Cases can be won or lost on the competency or otherwise of the expert and it is our policy to instruct the best possible expert in order to produce optimum results for our clients.
It follows then that we would not consider sharing out the work on an equal basis amongst a list of persons purporting to have talents in any particular field.
