Expert witness billing practices revisited: a pilot study of further data
TG Gutheil,
ML Commons,
and
PM Miller
This pilot study follows up an earlier study of the strategies and rationales by which psychiatric expert witnesses bill for their time on a case. Questionnaires were answered by participants at a workshop at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL). In this follow-up, additional novel billing issues were addressed, some subtler than in the original study. In addition, responses to one question supported the previous finding that experts billed more reasonably when a case was simple. Additional issues included use of fee agreements and returning an unpaid-for case. The implications of these findings are discussed.
