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/dow
nloadabledocuments/2013june1codeofprofessionalconduct.pdf
Rufus, R.J., Miller, L. S., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic Accounting. Pearson Education.
