• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

That rambling professor who goes on and on about the importance of utilitarianism may seem no more interesting than John Stuart Mill, but he’s got a secret: from time to time, he serves as an expert witness in court.

Professors in a wide variety of departments – from statistics to health services – lend their expertise as consultants to attorneys requiring specialized testimony.

Because of demand for witnesses in both civil and criminal cases, UCLA professors have appeared in murder cases, medical malpractice suits and cases involving allocation of state funds.

David Feinberg, medical director for UCLA neuropsychiatric and behavioral health services, said court consultation is not an uncommon practice in his department, but that most people are not involved.

Although Feinberg said some of his colleagues have stopped testifying in court because they don’t like it, he finds consulting fun and worthwhile.

“I see it as part of my teaching mission,” Feinberg said, explaining that he can improve mental health policy by educating courts and lawyers.

Both Feinberg and the university benefit from his work, which has included cases involving custody issues and defending people in danger of receiving the death penalty. He gets paid $400 an hour, some of which supplements his salary; the rest goes to helping patients who can’t afford treatment.

Feinberg explained that lawyers, who find expert witnesses on a deposition database or by word of mouth, prefer UCLA professors because they “have good credentials.”

Claremont attorney Jeanne Sterba, who works on catastrophic personal injury cases, agrees that professors serve as reliable expert witnesses.

“The university people tend to have a nice blend of work experience and academic credentials,” Sterba said. “They have to do research and publish so they are considered preeminent in their field.”

Stuart Schweitzer, a professor of health services, said there are three main incentives that drive his desire to testify in court cases.

While he is being paid as a consultant, he is able to learn something and engage in community service.

“I learn more about various health policy issues (and) this is what I teach,” Schweitzer said.

He pointed out that consultation can further a professor’s career.

“It gets external validation of somebody’s skills and proficiency, (which is) better than individual faculty blowing their own horn,” Schweitzer said.

Not every professor who has been involved with litigation enjoys the process.

Statistics department Chairman Jan de Leeuw has testified in a handful of cases involving racial discrimination in schools, but has given up appearing in court in favor of aiding lawyers in analyzing data.

“There is a lot of pressure and it’s very time consuming and it’s very high-strung,” de Leeuw said, adding that he doesn’t like the non-academic atmosphere.

William Meecham, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, is selective in what court cases he agrees to work on.

He once worked on a lawsuit against a police department in which officers shot a man, allegedly mistaking a slamming door for a gun shot.

“I felt that the people had been harmed,” Meecham said. “I would like to help.”

Thomas Garrick, a professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, works on a wide variety of civil cases involving psychiatric issues.

Garrick said he usually puts in a few hours a week and is working on cases most of the time, though he only appears in court a few times a year.

Most of the time, Garrick, a certified forensic psychiatrist, works as a forensic consultant, helping attorneys understand the limitations of a case so they don’t have to go to court.

“I am not a kind of paid gladiator for the attorneys; I give them a balanced view of the case,” Garrick said.

Garrick and other professors acknowledge that they make good expert witnesses not only because they have good credentials, but because they don’t have to rely on consultation as their primary source of income.

“There are probably those out there who (are biased), but you don’t develop a reputation as an academic and wreck it by being a sort of hired gun,” Garrick said.

Feinberg also emphasized the benefits of not relying on consultation for salary.

“I can speak the truth,” he said.

Comments

Post a comment