Expert insights, legal technology trends, and best practices for working with expert witnesses
It is the morning of trial. A forensic accounting expert has been asked to appear at a pre-trial Daubert hearing before the jury is seated. She has spent fourteen months on this case. She has built a model, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and produced a 140-page report. She is, without question, an expert.
A federal court in the Southern District of Texas has issued a show cause order against an attorney representing Matthew and Monica Dawkins in a bad faith insurance lawsuit against Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Company. The court’s demand for explanation comes after the attorney submitted an expert report from a witness who was already deceased, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. The underlying case involves the Dawkins’ insurance claim for water damage to their Houston home, which Allstate allegedly underpaid or wrongfully denied. The plaintiffs accuse the insurance company of breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and acting in bad faith by failing to properly investigate and compensate their claim. The lawsuit also alleges multiple violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). However, the focus has now shifted to the plaintiffs’ attorney, who must justify why an expert witness report was filed despite the expert no longer being alive. The court’s order highlights the duty of candor attorneys owe to the judiciary and raises potential consequences, including sanctions, disciplinary action, or even disqualification from the case. The incident serves as a cautionary tale about scrupulous expert designations and ethical compliance in litigation.
