Many times, the most dominant witness in a modern-day trial is the opposition’s expert. A trial lawyer cannot do justice to his clients until he has mastered the ability to take an effective deposition of the opposition’s expert. Effective cross-examination of opposition’s expert at trial depends a great deal on an effective deposition. The lawyer must have a working knowledge of an unfamiliar subject matter on many occasions. Anything short of gaining this working knowledge, puts the case and client at a great risk. There are no shortcuts in the preparation necessary for a thorough effective deposition of an expert.

Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, Adelphia. It is almost impossible to turn on the television or open the newspaper without being confronted with yet another corporate scandal. Reports of financially troubled companies and their accountants deceiving the public are commonplace. In the wake of these scandals, Americans are faced not only with losing their jobs, but also with the demise of their stock portfolios and retirement savings. As the media exposes these corporate wrongdoings, prospective jurors everywhere are forming their opinions. A recent juror attitude study conducted by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, in partnership with Bowne DecisionQuest, has revealed some alarming conclusions. Out of over 1,000 jury eligible subjects polled nationwide,

Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, ImClone, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, Martha Stewart, Merril Lynch, AOL Time Warner, and a local addition, HealthSouth. It is almost impossible to turn on the television or open the newspaper without being confronted with yet another corporate scandal. Reports of financially troubled companies and their questionable accountants are commonplace. Accusations of insider trading by high profile shareholders are routine.1 In the wake of these scandals, Americans are faced not only with losing their jobs, but also with the demise of their stock portfolios and retirement savings.

A recent decision by the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, could harm future Agent Orange litigation. In a “tentative” ruling, the MDL Court entered a summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers of Agent Orange, a chemical used to defoliate the forests of Vietnam.3 The summary judgment was based upon the manufacturer’s claim that they are immune from liability by virtue of the government contractor defense – the manufacturers say that the government made them do it.

A. Ex parte Life Insurance Co. of Georgia, No. 1990932, 2001 WL 499313 (Ala. May 11, 2001), reversed the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals’ holding that the plaintiff, MIS, a general agent/marketer of CHAMPUS health insurance policies, had presented substantial evidence that particular circumstances existed to impose a duty upon the defendant, Life of Georgia, to disclose information that it was planning to sell or dissolve its health insurance division. The Court acknowledged the fact that Life of Georgia had superior knowledge of the information pertaining to its intent to sell the division. However, the Court concluded that superior knowledge of a fact, without more, does not impose upon a party a legal duty to disclose such information in the context of a fraudulent suppression claim.