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” ()
z z z 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 favourable 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 investigate whether 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.
z z z z z z z 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 consider 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
considered, 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 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 needed a case, I believe I would accept this one. The lawyer does not 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 analysed (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 should not 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 actually 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.
AICPA. (2013, June 1). Code of Professional Conduct and Bylaws.
https://us.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/standards/codeofconduct/downloadabledocuments/201
3june1codeofprofessionalconduct.pdf
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
