Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40 years, advising on cases relating to water quality, land contamination and corrosion.

I’ve got a weird day job…

By background, I’m a chemist. Essentially, I kill bugs and stop things from rusting! But day to day, I’m a consulting scientist and founder of my own consultancy, Marquis and Lord. We provide Expert Witness services and scientific input on issues around water quality and corrosion, regulatory impact, and public health.

As well as lawyers, our clients include building services and insurance companies. The more serious aspects of our work involve investigating legionella and deaths related to water quality.

I became an Expert Witness by accident.

The number of chemists who do what I do is relatively small. In my business, you either spend your life with a white coat on in a lab, or you do interpretive work. Lots of people don’t want to do the latter, because they don’t have the operational experience outside the laboratory or the confidence to apply the data they’re looking at. It’s a complex world and a lot of experience needs to be applied.

It takes a certain mindset to be an Expert Witness.

We work in a very adversarial environment which can be quite aggressive. But as an Expert Witness, you need to put that aside and be a friend of the court. It’s about pulling in all the information and informing the court properly. If you don’t know something, you’ve got to say you don’t know. At our consultancy, we’re fact-first: if we don’t have the facts, we shouldn’t be stretching our opinion.

I work on all kinds of cases to do with water quality.

I get involved in water supply cases where people are operating a private water supply, but by default they also supply other premises (like holiday cottages). Then there are public health incidents, where we’re asked to consider whether a risk assessment was done properly or investigate contamination in the water supply.  

We’re often asked to look at ground water pollution for private suppliers, like breweries and food factories. And we’ve been involved with cases to do with private swimming pools such as hotels.

Heating and ventilating systems are common cases for us which result from water quality problems resulting in corrosion issues. Technology is moving fast in that space and lots of things are changing in terms of how we manage water quality in the built environment.

We might only work on a couple of big cases a year, but the claim values are millions.

I have a 50/50 mix of being instructed by defence and prosecution and most cases are settled outside court. The majority of the cases are techno-legal. Loss adjustors won’t normally come to us unless the case is worth over £300,000. Trying to manage the expectation of everyone involved against the budget can be challenging. There are no quick fixes, and we can’t cut corners. 

If lawyers or loss adjustors don’t have in-depth subject knowledge, they can make incorrect assumptions about the case.

That’s when we have to do grassroots research and start right at the beginning. Sometimes, we get a shoebox full of tatty bits of paper. Other times, we get reasonably organised files. The best-case scenario is when we get a full disclosure bundle. But effort and cost really vary. Often, the costs of our involvement can outweigh the benefits to the case for small and medium sized claims.

Increased computing power has changed my Expert Witness field over the years.

There have been advances in accessibility to statistical techniques because computers have got bigger, better, and faster. We can look at statistical comparisons that help us identify causality and time of inception of a problem. Ultimately, advances in technology have meant we have more oversight and prompt us to ask more questions.

Justice is often achieved because of good quality data.

A case that stands out for me was regarding pollution of a trout farm. Somewhere up stream, someone realised there was faecal contamination. We were able to establish the exact date of the impact on the trout farm using the impeccable records the farmer had kept around fish size and mortality. That’s unusual, but it was extremely valuable and helped him claim successfully against the perpetrator. I like to think justice was done as a result of the data and its interpretation.

One of the biggest challenges that Expert Witnesses face is court deadlines.

The last thing you want is ridiculous amounts of pressure close to submitting your report. It would be great if we could comment on the deadlines. It’s often not until we’ve had lots of conversations with counsel — and they’ve seen a draft report — that they say they need more information. But going to court to agree extensions is an expensive process.

The earlier on that we experts can get involved in a case, the better.

Lawyers should talk to the Expert Witness before they think about their disclosure list or Letter Before Action, which has been sent or received before we become involved. We might be able to comment on information pertinent to the case that could change their thinking or strategy. Then, if they decide to instruct us, the whole process becomes easier for us and easier for them.  

My advice to anyone considering becoming an Expert Witness is…

Be humble. Get proper training on how to write an expert’s report. Cross reference everything and insist upon catalogued data.