{"id":499,"date":"2026-04-28T19:49:36","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T19:49:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/?p=499"},"modified":"2026-04-28T20:16:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T20:16:15","slug":"conflict-of-interest-and-dual-engagements-in-expert-witness-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/?p=499","title":{"rendered":"Conflict of Interest and Dual Engagements in Expert Witness Work"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

An analysis of independence, disclosure, and credibility in forensic engagement<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

By Gil Chotam & Greg Andrews | National Tile and Stone Authority (NTSA)<\/em><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Conflict of interest in expert witness work is rarely abrupt. It typically develops from prior involvement that predates formal litigation. Initial contact may occur through informal consultation, site visits, or preliminary discussions, without anticipation that the matter will later become disputed.<\/span><\/p>

When litigation arises, that prior involvement may affect how the expert\u2019s independence is perceived.<\/p>

In construction defect evaluation, credibility is directly tied to the appearance and reality of impartiality. Independence is not limited to the absence of bias, but extends to whether prior relationships, communications, or knowledge could reasonably be interpreted as influencing the expert\u2019s conclusions.<\/p>

Prior Involvement, Disclosure, and Perceived Impartiality<\/strong><\/h2>

A conflict of interest exists where prior interaction with one party introduces information, perspective, or alignment that may affect, or appear to affect, subsequent evaluation. This is not limited to financial relationships. It includes prior site inspections, product consultations, informal opinions, or discussions that may have shaped an understanding of the case.<\/p>

In some instances, involvement with both parties may occur at different stages of a project or dispute. Whether that involvement creates a disqualifying conflict depends on the nature of the information exchanged.<\/p>

Where confidential, proprietary, or case-specific information has been provided by one party, subsequent engagement by an opposing party may compromise the expert\u2019s independence. The concern is not whether the expert can remain objective, but whether the prior exposure affects the credibility of that objectivity.<\/p>

In other cases, prior involvement may have been limited to general observations or publicly available information. Under such conditions, the issue may be addressed through disclosure, allowing counsel to determine whether the engagement should proceed.<\/p>

The distinction between pre-litigation consulting and expert testimony is also relevant. An expert initially retained to evaluate conditions or advise on remediation may later be asked to provide testimony. Where the initial engagement involved factual assessment without participation in legal strategy, subsequent testimony may be appropriate, provided that the prior role is fully disclosed and the findings remain consistent with the evidence.<\/p>

However, where prior involvement included strategic input, coordination with counsel, or development of legal positions, the expert\u2019s role may be viewed as aligned with that party. In such cases, subsequent testimony may be subject to challenge based on lack of independence.<\/p>

For firms operating with multiple professionals, conflict of interest may extend beyond the individual expert. Prior involvement by another member of the firm may introduce concerns regarding shared information or internal influence. In these situations, the adequacy and timing of internal separation measures may become relevant to how the engagement is evaluated.<\/p>

In litigation, these issues are not assessed solely on actual bias, but on whether the circumstances create a reasonable basis to question impartiality. Prior involvement, if not disclosed, may become a focal point in deposition or trial.<\/p>

Conclusion<\/h2>

Conflict of interest in expert witness work is not always avoidable. Prior interactions, industry relationships, and the nature of consulting work may create overlapping involvement.<\/p>

The critical factor is disclosure.<\/p>

Where prior work, communication, or knowledge is clearly identified and presented, the expert\u2019s role can be evaluated within that context. Where it is not, the issue may shift from technical analysis to credibility.<\/p>

In construction defect litigation, the weight of an expert\u2019s opinion is inseparable from the perceived independence of the expert providing it.<\/p>

NTSA Caveat<\/h2>

This article is based on field observations, case reviews, and professional experience. It is intended to highlight patterns relevant to construction defect evaluation. Final determinations should be made based on project-specific documentation, testing, and coordination with all relevant parties.<\/p>

National Tile and Stone Authority<\/a> (NTSA) provides forensic consulting and expert witness services in tile and stone-related matters.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An analysis of independence, disclosure, and credibility in forensic engagement By Gil Chotam & Greg Andrews | National Tile and Stone Authority (NTSA) Conflict of interest in expert witness work is rarely abrupt. It typically develops from prior involvement that predates formal litigation. Initial contact may occur through informal consultation, site visits, or preliminary discussions,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[32,33,31],"class_list":["post-499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics","tag-conflict-of-interest","tag-dual-engagements","tag-expert-witness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=499"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/499\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":510,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/499\/revisions\/510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ntsaexperts.com\/NTSA-articles\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}