There are a lot of key issues that will need to be addressed prior to me even remotely
deciding on whether to accept the proposal to be an expert witness in his case. I will need to
make sure that Joseph Leslie has done enough research on me and my body of expertise to
know whether I would be a qualified expert witness in his case. “A witness who is qualified
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact
to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case” ()
While it may seem like I am trying to qualify myself to him, it is actually more
important for him to understand my body of work and expertise. If the case itself pertains to
an area of forensic accounting that I specialize in and have documented proof that I qualify,
then it would be in the best interest for both of us to have me testify as it would allow him to
potentially win his case, and it would provide me with favorable publicity that could bring
more clients through the door. If however, he is just having me there to testify on a subject
matter that I have no experience in, it can be detrimental to both of us as it could make his
case look bad, and the negative publicity due to my lack of experience would perhaps drive
people away from my business. It is relevant to whatever aspect of the case he needs me to
testify for.
I would also look into whether or not there are conflicts of interest. If there is
something that directly influences and or compromises my ability to be unbiased or
independent, this would need to be disclosed to not just him, but to the entire legal body
overlooking the case at hand. Even if the conflict of interest is not a “grave concern” in the
eyes of the court, I could still have the potential to not remain unbiased so the risk will always
linger. As stated in the previous section, my qualifications and competence to the case are also
a factor. I will need to have the skills necessary to conduct myself in an appropriate manner.
This includes knowledge of the topic at hand, opinions based on evidence without jumping to
conclusions of guilt or innocence, and being capable of relaying my knowledge in an effective
and clear manner. Compensation is also a great factor, I would need to know whether my
services are fairly and properly compensated. This means that all worked hours are properly
accounted for and will be properly paid out. As well as the schedule of pay dates and dates of
operation.
d d d I would ultimately choose not to provide my services to Joseph Leslie. This is due to
the final aspect on considering taking on a new client: ethical employment practices. Joseph is
known for pushing his staff to work long hours and expect results near-instant without
providing anything comparable in return. His range of clients is also in question as it seems he
is discriminating against smaller potential clients due to a lack of monetary status. He also has
a bad habit of paying his experts and consultants in a timely manner and this doesn’t seem
like it will be different even if a contract is introduced. His whole demeanor suggests that he
is a very litigious person and would more than likely pursue legal action if I choose to keep
him on task with his end of the bargain.
When accepting a case, there are many factors to take into account during the first screening
phase. It is crucial for a forensic accounting business to choose wisely whether to accept the
case and to ensure that they have an expert witness who is competent. An expert witness is a
person who is knowledgeable and skilled in a particular field of study. Also, I think it's crucial
that the lawyer chooses wisely whom he wants to be the expert witness.
Before accepting a proposed engagement, there are a few reengagement issues that should be
taken into account, according to the forensic accounting textbook. The first step in the book's
five-part screening procedure is to confirm that the lawyer you are representing and working
for is a respectable, morally upright individual. If the attorney were to push you outside of
your area of expertise in order to complete an assignment, that would certainly affect my
decision on the case. Another concern would be that following acceptance, the lawyer would
refuse to sign and return the engagement letter (Rufus et al, 2015).
Checking for conflicts of interest is the second stage of the screening procedure. Before a case
is accepted, the conflicts of interest must be determined (Rufus et al, 2015). The credibility of
the expert and the case would suffer if there was a conflict of interest in the case.
The final action I'll discuss relates to the case's competence and appropriate treatment. The
expert witness must be qualified to testify as well as possess experience, competence, and
training directly related to the case, according to the forensic accountant and the firm (Rufus
et al, 2015). The case's deadlines and time restrictions must also be well known to the forensic
accountant.
If I were in need of a case, I believe I would accept this one. The lawyer doesn't seem like
someone that is a very difficult client to work for. I would want to ensure that the lawyer
would promptly give me access to the pertinent information and evidence in the case so that
the evidence could be properly and successfully analyzed (Rufus et al, 2015). What is most
important, in my opinion, is that the lawyer has a solid reputation for being reliable and
honest. If you are paid an hourly rate with a retainer and make sure the retainer is collected
before work begins, the issue with pay shouldn't be a problem.
When deciding whether to accept an engagement or not, it’s important to look into factors that
will help someone avoid undesirable clients that may be risky. I would consider and
thoroughly screen the engaging attorney because attorneys have a common goal of helping
their clients win a case, even if it means sacrificing/hurting the expert’s reputation (Rufus et
al., 2014). Rufus et al. (2014) explained some signs of a potentially risky client: An attorney
who demands rush assignments, fails to provide material evidence, pushes the expert outside
their areas of expertise, fails to sign and return an engagement letter, or has a reputation for
slow or no payment (Rufus et al., 2014). Another factor that I would look into is gaining an
understanding of what competencies are required of this engagement and evaluate whether or
not my education/skill set qualifies me to do this job. I would consider what is being asked of
me and the conditions of the engagement. Is their available and reliable data? What are the
travel requirements? Also, it’s important to consider the payment arrangement. How and
when will payments be made?
In this situation, attorney Joseph Leslie seems like he would be a difficult client to work with.
He doesn’t treat his staff well as he makes them work long hours and requires them to provide
information very quickly. He also doesn’t pay his consultants and experts on time. These are
all red flags. Based on his reputation, I personally wouldn’t work with him. If someone else
chose to work with him, I’d recommend certain circumstances be met before accepting him as
a client. I’d recommend accepting him as a client only if he’s paying an hourly fee with a
retainer. This way is pretty straight-forward and the expert’s work is billed as work is
performed. The retainer is a payment that is collected ahead of time for services before they
are performed (Rufus et al., 2014). Since this attorney doesn’t pay on time, or may not even
pay, this requirement is necessary. Although an engagement letter is not required, I’d
recommend having one. This is a contract that protects all those involved, explains the legal
relationship, and lays out the expert’s understanding of their responsibilities (Rufus et al.,
2014). If this attorney changed things up during the engagement that was not in alignment
with the expert, then the expert can go back to the engagement letter to support their stance.
Before accepting an engagement there are various pre-engagement factors to consider. These
include: the engaging attorney (the client), conflicts of interest, competence and due care,
nature and scope of the assignment, and compensation. The first factor to consider is the
client (attorney) as attorneys are advocates for their clients. Sometimes an attorney can
“…sacrifice an expert’s reputation to advance their clients’ cause” (Rufus et al., 2015, p. 49).
Due to this, it is important to be aware of any red flags an attorney may show (reputation for
unethical practices, expert abuse, nonresponsive, slow or no payment). A good client would
respect the expert witness’s role, display proper communication, and be prompt on payments.
Another factor, conflicts of interest, takes into consideration objectivity and independence. It
is important there are no conflicts of interest. Competence and due care are where the forensic
accountant should review what is required of them to ensure it aligns with their specialized
skills and knowledge. They should also be able to meet any deadlines given. If this cannot be
done, it may not be in the best interest to accept the engagement. Along with ensuring they are
knowledgeable about the requirements, it is also essential to understand the nature and scope
to make sure the expert can complete the task in terms of data, witnesses, and travel. Lastly,
compensation should also be considered. How much, when, who is making the payment, what
fees are associated, and any other issues need to be considered and discussed. “Retainers
should be collected before work begins and should be replenished when depleted” (Rufus et
al., 2015, p. 49). Once all factors are considered and the forensic accountant decides to accept
the engagement, an engagement letter should be sent and signed to ensure the client
understand and accepts the forensic accountant’s conditions.
Going through the above factors, I personally would not accept this case. The client is giving
off many red flags. First, Attorney Joseph Leslie is showing a reputation for expert abuse
where he rushes staff and demands long work hours. The contradiction is that they do not
hold themselves to the same standard. They also have a reputation for not paying consultants
and experts in a timely manner. These two red flags alone cause concern for the potential for
other issues. Will requests be responded to in a timely manner? Will a retainer be paid? Will
the expert’s opinion be sacrificed just to advance the client’s cause?
There are a few considerations that should be made before accepting an engagement. First,
the expert witness should consider the engaging attorney and their reputation (Rufus et al,
2015). Attorney Joseph Leslie is known for winning difficult white-collar crime. However, he
is also known for having his staff work long hours and demanding information quickly while
he does not do the same. These can be considered red flags and reasons to decline the
engagement. The second thing to consider would be any conflicts of interest that could impair
the expert witness’s objectivity and independence. Should any conflicts of interest be
identified, it must be disclosed to the client as well as obtaining written consent
acknowledging the conflict and waiving any objections before the engagement is accepted.
The third consideration would be competence and due care. Ensuring the expert witness has
the qualifications and ability to perform the work being asked of them is necessary. The
AICPA code of professional conduct requires that expert witnesses demonstrate due care by
not accepting work that exceeds their abilities (AICPA, 2013).
The fourth consideration is the nature and scope of the assignment or determining exactly
what it is the expert witness is being hired to do. This consideration should be determined
based on factors such as availability and condition of data, accessibility of witnesses, unusual
risks, travel requirements, etc. (Rufus et al, 2015). Attorney Joseph Leslie is known for not
providing information very quickly, which could make the expert witness’s job more difficult
or cause and inaccurate testimony based on a lack of information. The final consideration
should be compensation and how the expert witness will be paid. The client, attorney Joseph
Leslie, is known for not paying consultants and experts in a timely manner. This would be a
reason to decline the engagement. If the expert witness did accept this engagement, they
might consider asking for a retainer, an advanced payment for services which hourly fees are
charged against (Rufus et al, 2015). Retainers are collected before the work begins so this
would ensure the expert witness receives payment for their services.
I believe the expert witness should decline this engagement. While the client has a reputation
for winning difficult cases, they also have a negative reputation for demanding information
quickly and overworking the staff. Additionally, the client does not provide information
quickly which would impede the work of the expert witness.
Should the expert witness accept the case, they should produce an engagement letter and
ensure it is signed by the client. The engagement letter is used to identify the parties involved,
defines the nature of the relationship, identifies limitations on the scope of the engagement
and outlines specific terms (Rufus et al, 2015). Within the specific terms, the expert witness
should include being paid using a retainer and that all information is provided in a timely
manner.
The factors one should consider before potentially taking on the services of Attorney Joseph
Leslie or engaging anyone for professional services. We know that he has success with white
collar crime, given his track record in the court room winning those difficult cases, but one
must not overlook any risks that can arise or uncover and the rewards that can result from
taking on the case. One must conduct a screening process to determine the factors that take
into consideration the decision to continue the engagement. These factors include engaging
attorney and looking at their reputation for making ethical decisions that produce efficient
outcomes and signal any potential red flags that can discourage from accepting a client. Other
factors one must consider include disclosing any conflicts of interest that can result in any
biases, ensuring that the client exhibits competence and due care with their objectives, as well
as familiarizing oneself with the nature and scope of the environment, which would allow one
to effectively assess the risks and rewards. Finally the last factor one should consider before
accepting an engagement includes the compensation details, which should answer how much
one is going to get paid, “When? Who is responsible for the payment? How are fee disputes
resolved?” (Rufus et al., 2015, 51). Given the details of Mr. Leslie’s reputation I will find it
difficult to even consider accepting this engagement given his unethical tactics to push his
employees to work long hours in order to provide him the information needed to make his
case. The reputation for expert abuse would be red flag to signal a bad client, as, “forensic
accountants must be aware that some attorneys are quite willing to sacrifice an expert’s
reputation to advance their client’s cause (and thus their own)” (Rufus et al., 2015, 49). In
order to possibly accept this case the proper competence and due care must be improved
dramatically in order to build and gain the necessary trust to proceed with an engagement
letter. These would include properly compensating for any overtime work, hiring the adequate
number of staff to efficiently analyze the case, and making sure that any and all consultants be
paid in a timely manner. One may give the attorney the benefit of the doubt until they meet in
person because, “no matter the reputation or marketing savvy of the lawyer, the impression
the lawyer makes during the engagement process and throughout a matter is critical to
building and maintaining credibility,” which could be the deciding factor to obtaining a better
understanding before making the final decision to accept or reject the potential client (Levine,
2015).
References
Levine, S. (2015). The Power of Leading an Engagement Effectively. Law Practice: The
Business of Practicing Law, 41(5), 42–45
Rufus, R., Miller, L., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic Accounting. Pearson Education, Inc.
AICPA. (2013, June 1). Code of Professional Conduct and Bylaws.
https://us.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/standards/codeofconduct/downloadabledocu
ments/2013june1codeofprofessionalconduct.pdf
Rufus, R.J., Miller, L. S., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic Accounting. Pearson Education.
Rufus, R., Miller, L., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Rufus, R., Miller, L., & Hahn, W. (2014). Forensic accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
R. Adam Swick and Ryan Goldstein (30, Sept 2021)
/https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/trial-
practice/practice/2021/expert-witnesses-the-basics
https://us.aicpa.org/research/standards/codeofconduct
Rufus, R., Miller, L., Hahn W. (2015), Forensic Accounting
Article VII: Opinion and Expert Evidence. Mass.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2023,
from https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/article-vii-opinion-and-expert-
evidence#section-701-opinion-testimony-by-lay-witnesses
