I believe that honesty is an absolute; someone either is or is not honest, there are no degrees of or partial honesty and one cannot be honest in some aspects of life or business and not in others. And I believe that honesty, both personally and in their work product, is the essential requirement for any expert witness and litigation consultant.
The primary concentration of my business is acting as a strategic consultant to the homebuilding and residential development industries. I truly enjoy assisting in the conceptualization, creation and realization of successful new home communities that result in places and homes in which people wish to live. But I am also involved in expert witness and litigation consulting assignment when I find that the need for establishing the “truth” is, to me, both obvious and compelling.
Perhaps I am naïve but when I accept an expert witness or litigation consulting assignment I make certain that the attorneys and clients fully understand that until I complete my due diligence I cannot guarantee that my opinion will support their position. And I assume that other witness and consultants would follow the same process as I believe that it is both dishonest and a disservice to the client to first accept an assignment and then work, taking whatever steps may be necessary, sometimes in opposition to the “truth”, to create an opinion that supports their client’s position.
I certainly will not suggest that the expert is always right as there are always two sides to any dispute and both sides cannot be correct, in either fact or in the eyes of the judge or jury. But when an expert fails to have prepared a credible opinion based upon discernible and verifiable facts utilizing proven and accepted methodology, i.e., the “truth”, the outcome should be foreseeable and obvious.
I recently was retained as a litigation consultant and expert witness for a multi-million dollar trial concerning a proposed residential development. Interestingly, I had some familiarity and previous experiences with the company retained as an expert by the opposing side in the case:
– I first was asked to review one of this company’s reports for a second home community many years ago by a friend and respected competitor who had been brought in to assist with a struggling development. I found that the original strategy had proposed a development based on a target market segment that did not exist in any meaningful numbers in that metro area. Needless to say, the community had suffered seriously and now required substantial and expensive repositioning.
– Subsequently I was asked to review this company’s report for a proposed primary-use major community which was under development. They had recommended a TND community (traditional neighborhood design or “new urbanism”), apparently at least in part as one of the development partners had a fondness for this concept and already had an existing community of this type in the local area. My review of the local marketplace revealed that the two existing TND communities, including the developer’s, were struggling (one of them quite badly) compared to the more common conventional design communities as the local market had simply not responded to this concept. Additionally, my research suggested that the price points that this company had recommended were not achievable in this location in any meaningful numbers.
It appeared to me that this company had failed to perform proper due diligence and therefore lacked the essential understanding of the conditions and geographic preferences of the metro area and, specifically, the local sub-market in which the property was located. My recommendations, accepted rather painfully by the client, were for the redesign and repositioning of the property into a conventional suburban community, keeping only a small TND village center that was already partly under construction. The resulting revised community, when brought to market, was highly successful, substantially exceeded sales absorption and profitability projections and winning several major national awards.
Based on these previous experiences I personally did not hold the work product of this company in the highest regard as I was not certain that “truth” was evident but I was truly not prepared for what I read in their expert opinion in this case as it appeared to me to be pure fantasy.
In the preparation of my opinion I followed the same accepted industry standards for analyzing any proposed development – utilizing due diligence to provide a fact-based platform upon which to create a strategy (development program) that has a reasonable likelihood of achieving success or, in this specific example, to verify that the proposed development would not have been successful. Continue reading