This story is, of course, entirely fictitious. I am writing it in the first person only as a matter of convenience. I am stretching author’s licence to the full and I am not restraining my imagination one little bit.

I recall that back in the 60s I was beginning to gain more and more responsibility in my role as a surveyor. By the time of the late 60s, I suppose it would be fair to say that I was fairly competent at my job. Well, to be truthful, I believed that I was really quite good at my job, but then most of my colleagues were also quite good. Most of them were, like myself, qualified, reasonably dedicated and well experienced at the work. We had assistants and juniors below us and, naturally, more senior people above us.

In particular, I recall that some of the most senior people above us were recognised experts in the field of the surveyor. Some of these people, usually partners in the firm, were often called upon to act as experts in arbitration and court proceedings.

It was always great news to be called upon to assist one of these senior people when one of them had been appointed as an expert. Such work always provided an added interest for the likes of myself. Fortunately, for me and others like me, the partners were usually extremely busy people who were already fully engaged in the business of finding work for a busy firm, hiring staff, managing staff and doing all the other things one has to do in running a business. As you can imagine, it is never a simple task for the top people to keep a business running properly and, of course, profitably.

Anyway, such was the workload of many a partner that most of the work for an expert’s report was done at the level of people like myself. Indeed, one may say that most of the work was done at the level where it ought to be done because, although people at my level did not really regard ourselves as experts, we were the ones with the day-to-day knowledge and working experience to deal with the issues which had to be answered.

When in due course a report prepared for a partner was finally drafted, and the drafters (namely: the likes of myself) were, in a sense, cross-examined by the partner who had been appointed the expert, the final touches were added and the final report would be sent off to whoever had requested it.

Sometimes, little more was heard about the matter. At other times, more work was needed as further questions were raised. Sometimes, there were anxious moments when it was discovered that the matter may come to a hearing in arbitration or litigation. On such occasions there was often a great flurry of activity in the process of the partner revisiting the report and preparing notes for a hearing. All the more so when the lawyers had been acting like the representatives of the other side in mock play-outs of what may actually happen when the expert appeared in the courtroom.

Fortunately, with the quality - if I may say so - of the evidence included in the report by those people at my own level, it was the case that in nearly all matters some settlement was reached before a hearing. As to any matter which went to a hearing and where the partner had to be in attendance, there was little feedback of the nitty-gritty details of the goings-on in the courtroom, save for the overall result. Which overall result would be in the form of a reasoned judgement of the court, but, more usually, the award of an arbitrator, who had simply stated that "A" was to pay "B" a sum of money without any reasons at all being given, the usual format of the time. Of course, even where matters did go to a hearing it was still often the case that a settlement was reached without ever calling for the oral evidence of the expert.

As I progressed beyond the day-to-day activities of the work of a surveyor and became more and more involved in the management and the settlement of disputes, I became more and more aware of the real functions and duties of an expert. With this greater knowledge, it became quite clear to me that my colleagues and I who had been involved in day-to-day work as surveyors were the people who should have been appointed the experts.

In the field of surveying and similar work, it seems to be inevitable that as one progresses and as one becomes more and more experienced one becomes less inclined or less able to do the things which brought about that experience and progress in the first place. Indeed, many a time our team was successful - often too easily so, but not incorrectly so - when facing an individual of more mature years who had undertaken some work of in the capacity of an expert, but who had long since done little else in the day to day involvement in the topic, save as in the role of an expert.

As I progressed, I was often called upon to act as an expert on some matter or another; indeed, I would say I was often encouraged to do so. However, always I recalled the days when I used to help prepare the reports for the person who was appointed the expert, and I wondered what particular expertise I had retained. I was, of course, becoming better and better at doing my current work, but less and less informed about most of the things upon which an expert’s opinion was sought. My answer was to decline and suggest that the matter be handled by someone with day-to-day involvement in the subject. As things were standing, it seemed to be a fair assessment to say that more and more one’s expertise as a senior person was in framing the right questions and in having a dogged determination to get an answer.

There are, of course, some fields of activity where the individuals seem to become simply better and better experts until the day they retire. I should imagine that such fields are those in medical work, for example: such as a consultant neurologist working in the health service, who spends all the time until retirement in dealing with patients. At least, if such consultants fail to keep up to date, they are reminded every day of the risk of such a failure.

Anyway, I suppose that one must be careful to avoid becoming too cynical about the work of experts. One must avoid any tendency to say that this expert looks too old and is probably out of touch, and that expert looks too young and is probably not experienced enough. Indeed, one must be careful to avoid global criticism of any kind, but it is nevertheless the case that much global criticism has been directed towards experts.

There is no doubt that an important role exists for experts in contentious matters where the facts, and inferences based upon facts, need to be understood before a decision can be made; but what is difficult to understand is how such a great army of experts has evolved to provide this necessary function; and, of course, fall prey to much criticism. Could it be that the judges of the courts have wittingly or unwittingly created these vast numbers of experts?

When it is considered that the judge is bound to make a decision on less than adequate information, it is obvious that there will always be a hiatus in the evidence. This hiatus must be filled before a decision can be made. This situation is bound to result in a judge being anxious either to have a single expert fill the gap or, at least, to be able to choose somewhere between the contentions evolved out the opinions of two opposing experts. This inevitable situation in the judicial process has created a vacuum which has been filled in the only way possible, namely: by a great army of experts. These experts suffer a love-hate relationship with the judges, because the judges cannot do without them and yet do not want to submit to being subservient to the greater knowledge of the expert on the topic upon which the judge is making the all-important decision.

It all seems to be unsatisfactory, but moving from the global view down to the individual case it is probably not quite so bad as it seems. Anyway if one needs to go to litigation one needs to submit to the inevitable procedure. The court procedure may be improved by an injection of an inquisitorial balance to the procedure - if only the judges knew enough about the topic to be able to ask searching questions. Of course, this is where arbitration could play a more effective role - if only arbitrators had the courage to use the inquisitorial powers which they have been given in order to ask the questions that evolve from their experience of working in the field of the dispute before them. Alas, it seems that many arbitrators want to be like judges in the courtroom, but they do not have the judge’s authority; and judges often want to have the powers given by default to arbitrators, but have not the knowledge to use them.