by

In Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Hospitality Industry hospitality expert witness Maurice Robinson writes that the International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC) has facilitated customized dispute resolution training programs to industry experts.

This exercise has resulted in a panel of highly experienced and qualified arbitrators and mediators with extensive experience in dealing with hospitality industry issues – the best of both worlds. Thus, the industry now has a supply of industry experts, the vast majority of them being current or former ISHC members with 10 to 40 years of industry experience – who have been trained and certified as commercial arbitrators, mediators and Issue Review Board members, and who are ready to support the resolution of disputes, from the simplest to the most complex.

A wide variety of complex business and real estate disputes in the hospitality industry are now arbitrated, ranging from the parties’ respective rights and obligations under management contracts and franchise agreements to disputes concerning capital improvements, annual budgets and the calculation of incentive and other fees, to disputes concerning allocation of chain-wide costs, and even the composition of competitive sets.

Continue reading

by

UMass Dartmouth Professor Brian Glyn Williams was called as a law and legal expert witness in the judicial proceedings to determine the legal status of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. Hamdan is being held as an “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” which denies him Geneva Convention rights as prisoner of war. Glyn’s role as an expert witness was to shed light on the military command structure of the Taliban and Al Qaida armies. SouthCoastToday.com also reports:

…Capt. Allred denied Mr. Hamdan’s appeal, in essence ruling that he was neither a member of a full-fledged army such as Dr. Williams described on the stand nor a low-level employee somewhere in the rear.

“In addition, these rulings will not only now provide a basis for Hamdan to appeal any future conviction by the commission, but may also have provided a windfall for other detainees (there are 330 at Guantanamo, in Dr. Williams’ estimate).

Continue reading

by

UMass Dartmouth Professor Brian Glyn Williams was called as a law and legal expert witness in the judicial proceedings to determine the legal status of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. Hamdan is being held as an “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” which denies him Geneva Convention rights as prisoner of war. Glyn’s role as an expert witness was to shed light on the military command structure of the Taliban and Al Qaida armies. SouthCoastToday.com also reports:

The bottom line for him (Williams) is that the Taliban and Al Qaida forces, far from being a loose collection of terrorists, was and is a trained fighting force with old but serviceable weapons, with insignias, uniforms and a command structure. In short, the kinds of things that would qualify it as an army for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions. It was not just conjecture on his part; Dr. Williams has traveled repeatedly to Afghanistan and other parts of the region, and has interviewed captured Al Qaida and Taliban fighters to learn about their command structure, among other things.

Mr. Hamdan, in his view, was far from full-fledged Al Qaida but rather a low-level recruit from Yemen without the education or wealthy background to rise into the elite ranks of those such as Osama bin Laden who masterminded the 911 attacks. If anything, he was part of the army that fought off the Soviets in Afghanistan and has now turned to fighting the U.S. and its allies.

Continue reading

by

UMass Dartmouth Professor Brian Glyn Williams has been called as a law and legal expert witness in the judicial proceedings to determine the legal status of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. Hamdan is being held as an “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” which denies him Geneva Convention rights as prisoner of war. Glyn’s role is to shed light on the military command structure of the Taliban and Al Qaida armies. “As an expert witness I was supposed to be above the fray, to shed some light and personal professional knowledge” into an area that he says is routinely oversimplified, he said. SouthCoastToday.com also reports:

Most people in government and the military, he said, “discovered this zone after 911. Their view is shaped by images of people falling out of buildings on 911,” he said. As a result they have a “reductionist approach” in which every Arab, every person connected with Al Qaida or the Taliban army is considered a terrorist. “If you were caught, you had something to do with 911,” he said.

Excerpted from UMD professor testifies as expert witness at trial of bin Laden’s driver, Steve Urbon, Standard-Times senior correspondent, December 30, 2007.

by

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with the preliminaries of retaining an expert.

Choosing a medical expert consultant requires critical evaluations of numerous features beyond obvious medical expertise. This is even more so for the key witnesses in a case. Medical experts need to be located, assessed for preliminary suitability, retained and later declared as an expert. The procedure is very active to maximize the value of your medical expert consultant. Once one has decided that a particular expert is the logical one to retain, one has to assess the match of the medical aspects of a case with the expert’s suitability in the context of the opinions (s)he will express. This means that retaining an expert does not mean a commitment to proceed with that expert through the case.

A carefully worded pre-retaining phase may ensue where the attorney very briefly describes the key facts in the case. The expert usually will not be able to express an opinion at that stage. Sometimes, however, I have been able to indicate to attorneys that the particular case does not fall within my experience range or my expertise; and at times, I indicate the converse.

Continue reading

by

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with credibility of your expert.

Choices are complicated by knowing that a credible expert will express an honest opinion. This may lead to the expert expressing an opinion that is unfavorable to the particular case. However, this may not be a disadvantage. The key is knowing your case’s strengths and limitations.

You should respect your expert’s thoughts. (S)He is generally trying to assist you, and his / her adverse opinion usually is well founded. If the expert’s opinion is entirely adverse, this may be a reason not to declare him / her further and find another expert provided a gray zone of opinion legitimately exists for that issue. On the other hand, it may be a strong clue, unless there are other cogent circumstances, to cut one’s losses and to settle the case or not bring it to trial or even not to file it.

Continue reading

by

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony begins by finding an appropriate match.

Clearly there are specifics that lead some experts to be retained above others. Expertise in a health care specialty is only one component to consider. Respect in the medical discipline is often a major index of success as an expert. The components of such esteem are predicated on peer respect, appropriate qualifications and recognition in the area.

Several other qualities should be relatively self-evident, but appear commonly neglected. All

Continue reading

by

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony begins by finding an appropriate match.

Finding the correct medicolegal expert for a case is clearly dependent on, not only their expertise in the area, but their forensic proficiency at review, advisory and testamentary levels, as well as the respect they will command, their geographic location and the costs involved. Attorneys have to find medicolegal experts very carefully. Choices not only relate to skills in court, but the assistance that can be given prior to any testimony.

In choosing, one should create a list of what is needed and a shortlist of who can fill that role. You should list the strengths and limitations of your potential expert. This involves not only knowledge and expertise with the specific medical problems being analyzed, but skills such as incisive thinking, quick responsiveness, communication skills, responsibility, integrity and ability to work efficiently but rapidly.

Continue reading

by

Law and legal expert witness Stephen Saltzburg told the House Judiciary Committee Thursday that the CIA’s official explanation for destroying at least two videotapes depicting severe interrogation techniques “fails the straight-face test.” Expert witness Saltzburg is general counsel for the National Institute of Military Justice and a George Washington University Law School professor. RawStory.com also writes:

‘The rationale for destroying the tapes to protect the identity of the interrogators is almost as embarrassing as the destruction itself,’ said Saltzberg. He said that the tapes could easily have been modified to obscure the faces of those involved, and that regardless, the CIA keeps a written record of which officers interrogated detainees.

‘And so the explanation for destruction fails the straight-face test,’ he said. “The only plausible explanation, I believe, is that the CIA wanted to assure that those tapes would never be seen by any judicial tribunal — not even a military commission — and they would never be seen by a committee of Congress.’

Continue reading

by

Crookston, MN Police Officer Donald Rasicot was found not guilty Wednesday of misconduct and assault during a 2006 arrest of a drunken man. The man’s injuries were not consistent with a kick to the head, according to police procedures expert witness, Joe Dutton, a 30-year veteran of the Golden Valley Police Department who has trained thousands of law enforcement officers, including FBI agents, on proper use of force. He was the final expert witness and said Rasicot used appropriate force and that he would have done the same in similar circumstances. GrandForksHerald.com reports the:

Former Marine and veteran police officer who has been in trouble once before over his use of force, Rasicot faced possible time behind bars. He was charged early this year with two counts of misconduct by a public officer, both gross misdemeanors, and a count of fifth-degree assault, a misdemeanor. The first two counts each carried a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The charges came from allegations made by Jason Knutson, 24, Crookston, after Rasicot arrested him in August of last year.