What if your expert didn't give you the opinion you were seeking? Should you shop-around in the hope of finding someone who will produce a different result? The answer is: if money is not an object and you honestly feel your quest will be successful, go ahead. My experience has been that, if the experts are given the same materials to examine, they will arrive at the same, or similar, opinions. But if you *know* the examiner is wrong, give it a try.
What if you *did* get the opinion you were seeking, might your position at trial be stronger and more convincing if there are two examiners testifying in your behalf... strength in numbers? Again, if you have the money and feel the interests of your case will be best served with two, go ahead. Personally, I feel that if you hired someone who is qualified and experienced in a courtroom setting, one examiner is all that is needed. Time is precious in court and the judge could get impatient going over something that has just been covered in great detail. Irritating the judge is never a sound strategy.
What if there "are" two different opinions. How is it that two qualified, competent examiners could arrive at different opinions? More often than not, they have been given different cases. Hard to imagine, but in an adversarial circumstance, there is no guarantee that everyone will be playing nice. One expert may have had access to original document and the other not. One side may be holding on to standard (and possibly exculpatory) material and not sharing. If one of the advisories *knows* the unhappy truth about the disputed handwriting and that truth is not good for his or her case, slow-walking could be the flavor-of-the-day.
Comments