A review of the rules on appointing expert witnesses and an outline of best practices when instructing an expert

This is the sixth article in a series focusing on specialist skills and knowledge in Civil Litigation. Expert witness evidence can be crucial to winning a case, so choosing the right expert and instructing him or her properly is an important task. As a legal secretary, you would not normally be expected to choose the actual expert in a case, but that does not mean you do not have a role in the process.

Like nearly everything else nowadays, there are sometimes too many choices, so being in a position to narrow down the options is valuable to a fee earner as it will save him or her time. If you are asked to compile contact details for appropriate experts, there are a number of places you can look.

Following an unusually high number of serious dog attacks in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government at the time felt compelled to pass the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991. This statute aimed to control some of the breeds of dogs that seemed to be featured in the news most prominently at the time, with the Pit Bull Terrier being particularly targeted.

We are delighted to have received a record number of enrolments for our Legal Secretaries Diploma course this September. The good reputation of the Institute is growing year by year and many of our enrolments are from word of mouth. The course is of great worth and the proof is in the pudding as Students have gained a variety of excellent positions on the strength of the qualification.

We spend a large proportion of our weekday lives working, but how much time do we spend on checking that our job and office environment is working for us? Here are some of the basics. You might find it useful to run an audit to check whether you can make or influence any improvements.

A summary of the rules of disclosure and an update on the expanding use of electronic disclosure

This is the fifth article in a series focusing on specialist skills and knowledge in civil litigation. We have previously considered the skills needed to prepare court bundles (February 2009); without prejudice correspondence (March 2010); pre-action protocols (June 2010); and legal costs in litigation (August 2010).

When we considered pre-action protocols it was noted that any case rests on the evidence. In particular, the importance of exchanging evidence early was highlighted. What was not considered was exactly how parties disclose evidence.

Parties usually have to disclose information in the following circumstances:

We live in an era when freedom of information is being vigorously pursued by all and sundry. Though we might have constitutional rights to demand certain information, sometimes we won’t so easily have access to this information. Just as we need access to certain information, people also have their reasons for needing confidentiality and their rights to such cannot be violated. According to the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), confidentiality is simply “ensuring that information is accessible only to those authorised to have access.” Conversely, information lacks confidentiality to the extent that it is available or when it is disclosed to unauthorized persons or processes.

Why do we need a memory? At its most basic level, our memory is there so that we do not need to relearn things; to take examples from early life, things such as learning how to walk, talk, read, write, ride a bicycle, etc. At a broader level, the memory’s function is to allow us to access relevant and accurate information at the right time. To access relevant information, research has shown that we are more likely to remember important things by writing them down and leaving our memory the job of knowing where the information is written down rather than burdening it with holding all the details in the immediate recall section of the memory stores. In other words, using tools both to jog our memory and to provide the full detail needed.

The sense of moral outrage provoked by the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) debacle probably has some way to play; this is hardly surprising, given the jumbled mix of apathy and blundering displayed by those at the top of HM Revenue & Customs. To start, its failings were dressed up as the taxpayer’s responsibility; but since the initial announcements, they have been forced to issue a flurry of back-pedalling clarifications that have probably only served to muddy the waters for the harassed taxpayer.

But, putting aside justifiable indignation, what redress does the aggrieved UK taxpayer have, once the dreaded brown envelope has hit the doormat?

Self-assessment by stealth

The good Legal Secretary is well liked. Visitors to the office recall your courteous, cheerful manner, your intelligent considerateness and your smile. Fellow employees value your helpful cooperation and the little favours you are able to grant them. As for your employer, he depends on you in a hundred different ways, not only in business dealings but sometimes in social matters as well. It is part of your job to create a good impression and to establish and maintain friendly relations. Your corner of the office shows a touch of colour, literally as well as figuratively.

Another opportunity to deal with the legal hot potato of murder law reform in England and Wales has arisen recently, courtesy of the incumbent Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, supporting the reform of homicide law. But Keir Starmer’s kicking over of the ashes of the previous government’s half-hearted reform proposals have landed the coalition with quite a tricky task; no politician wants to get their fingers burned by an issue as heated as murder and life sentences. Nonetheless, a debate on the categorisation of murder, by degree, certainly appears to be back on the cards.