That kind of confuses me. It seems like if someone puts that much work into something they are more like a Detective on a case, than an outside resource.
Does that make sense? Like isn't that way too much time to assume they are unbiased?
It probably won't surprise anyone that their "declaration" is written by the lawyers, and then they go over it, line by line, making sure it's something they would have said.
The check that they are "unbiased" is that the other side asks them "does your compensation depend in any way on the outcome of this trial?" Of course it doesn't, officially.
the lawyers can request changes. sometimes she’ll make them. that doesn’t lose her any business.
Honestly, we had a perspective going in--which we had already written about publicly. Facts and conclusions were extensively footnoted. Someone could certainly choose to disagree with us but the fact that we worked on it for quite a bit of time (for which we were well-paid) didn't increase any bias. Indeed, we absolutely would not have taken the case from the other side.
then you review everything from the other side. and your fellow experts. and write a bunch of stuff. explain that to the lawyers.
fly across country to go to motions hearings, hearing is rescheduled, go home, fly back, listen to the other side’s experts. provide rebuttal testimony, etc.