Only 10 years ago the job of an expert was relatively easy. You would be sent the clinical notes with the witness statement of one or other party and asked what you thought. You expressed yourself succinctly on one or two pieces of paper and that was that. It is true that about 5% of the time there would be a trial, albeit many years later but even in that unlikely event things were not very arduous. You would be asked to come to a conference with counsel a month or so before and you would then spend 2 or 3 days at trial listening to part of the evidence and then saying what you thought. All of this is a far cry from the modern performance. Today we expect our clients and experts to do much more of their own advocacy. The witnesses of fact explain the case in long detailed witness statements. Although not strictly evidence because they are not given on oath, these are served on the other side and read by the Judge before trial. They must by law include declaration that the witness believes the contents to be true and there are rules about how the paragraphs should be numbered and all dates set out in full in digits, such as 1.4.1066. can be helpful. Thus before the reports are exchanged counsel, solicitors, the client and the other experts need to meet to discuss them. We want to identify weaknesses, to point out errors and to correct assumptions which are no longer valid. We may wish it to be more tactfully expressed: if the report expresses too clearly the expert’s contempt for the senility, medical beliefs, truthfulness or coherence of his opponent, he may be asked to tone it down. Certainly counsel may not write reports, as Lord Wilberforce pointed out in Jordan vs Whitehouse. But equally certainly counsel will advise on the report’s contents, and the difference may be in large part that after the conference at which the report is discussed, the expert has the extra chore of going away and re-writing it. This means that by the time the expert reports are exchanged in a major medical negligence action the chances are that the expert will have spent a weekend working on it, the equivalent of a half-day meeting counsel in conference and a further 2 or 3 hours re-writing his report. It may be less, but it can also be much more. In the case of the expert witness we ask them to write an opinion which recites the arguments on which the litigants rely. The benefit is enormous. It means that the other side and the judge understand our case before we start. It saves time. It promotes justice, because no one can be fair to a case unless they understand it, anymore than they can test it properly in cross-examination. The trouble is that it means work. The expert must have a detailed grasp of the facts and the medicine, and a passing familiarity with the rules of grammar You might suppose that that would be the end of the matter. But no, once reports are exchanged you will then be asked to comment on the report of your opponent. Since the experts report largely stands as the evidence in chief, the parties start to prepare the cross-examination as soon as it is received, months before trial. This will require more of your time in reading the report, analysing it, pointing out passages with which you disagree. If counsel does not understand these or wishes to explore the weaknesses you will be likely asked to attend another conference. Mr M. A. M. S. Leigh, Hempsons, Solicitors, 33 Henrietta Street, You will also be asked to do some research. There Covent Garden, London NW1 4RG. UK must be articles which support this or that point and