Professor Dennis Crouch, author of the excellent Patently-O patent law blog, has written an interesting summary detailing a federal court's disqualification of a law firm based in part on an expert witness declaration written by a partner at that firm, in the capacity as an expert witness, in a case in which the firm was representing the other side. The court noted that there was no indication that a conflict waiver had been signed. 

D. Michael Grodhaus, an attorney at Waite Bailey Bayless & Chelsey in Columbis, Ohio, has written an excellent article further elaborating on possible future changes to the law firm billable hour. He notes that while there is outside pressure on firms by corporate clients, a real shift away from widespread use of the billable hour may have to come from within law firms themselves. Check it out here.

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Bank of America, defending a suit by the SEC alleging that it misled investors prior to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., could not introduce expert witness testimony at trial detailing media reports predicting it would pay bonuses. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff found that Bank of America's argument that shareholders already knew that Merrill would likely pay billions of dollars in bonuses based on widespread media reports was not credible because the bank's own proxy statement told shareholders to ignore such reports.

The Chicago Tribune recently posted an interesting article addressing what has become a fairly hot topics these days, the law firm billable hour. It cites moves by clients such as Kraft, who solicited bids for its body of legal work, and Microsoft, where 45% of its future spending on legal services will be based on "alternative billing arrangements." The article suggest that in the next few years fully 25% of all corporate legal work could be based on some alternative billing arrangement.

An interesting article by legal business consultant Jim Hassett at Legal Business Development Blog notes that many top firms are dramatically lowering rates in an effort to "underbid" other firms for new business. Mr. Hassett learned of the pricing competition when he added a "loss leader" question in an alternative-fee survey of AmLaw 100 firms. The article goes on to detail some of the varied responses given by numerous major firms.

Medical expert witnesses in Maryland could see rules tightened in connection with their ability to testify in court as an expert. In 2004, Maryland issued a law that prevented any doctor who devoted more than 20% of their professional time to working on personal injury cases from testifying as a "medical expert." Soon the Maryland Court of Appeals is expected to clarify as to what sort of professional activities may make up the remainder of a doctor's time to qualify. Check out the full AMA story.

The Judicial Conference of the United States recently proposed an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would have an impact on expert witness communications. Specifically, the rule would expand the range of communications covered under the work product privilege between attorneys and expert witnesses. The rule change recommendation, as well as another governing summary judgment, must first be adopted by the Supreme Court before going into effect. Check out the full WSJ story.

American Lawyer recently published the  "A-List 2009," its annual ranking of the nation's "elite" law firms.  Round Table Group, the leading authority in expert witness search and referral, is proud to announce that it counts 49 of the 50 ranked firms as its clients. According to its website, to determine which firms qualify for the honor, American Lawyer evaluates four factors: revenue per lawyer, commitment to pro bono, diversity among lawyers, and associate training and satisfaction.

A U.S. District Court judge has prevented a medical expert witness from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs in cases involving Eli Lily's Zyprexa drug. The expert had previously testified in approximately 20 individual Zyprexa cases. The judge concluded that the expert was "shockingly careless about the facts in the cases he proposes to opine about." "He repeatedly and impermissibly stretched the truth to support findings of causality."

While it is useful for litigators to work with an expert witness who has extensive testifying experience on the issue at hand, it can also lead to problems. Seven of the 20 cases mentioned above where the doctor testified are now pending summary judgment by that same judge. Finding an equally knowledgeable and qualified medical expert witness with less exposure is a strategy worth exploring.