Forensic accountants are often retained in litigation as expert witnesses, with the intention that they will provide expert opinions and testimony on behalf of the client. Although retention as a consultant is less common, it is an important option to consider. Sometimes, the work of the consultant can be even more important than the work of the testifying expert. The consultant may be able to dig deeper into sensitive issues because there is no fear of testimony or of disclosing the consultant’s work.
One of the biggest benefits to retaining a consultant is the fact that the consultant’s communications and work product enjoy privilege. Because the consultant is essentially an extension of the law firm, the identity of the consultant, the scope of work, the evidence examined, and the results of the work need not be disclosed to opposing counsel. (Note that documents examined by the consultant may very well need to be disclosed as part of the discovery process, but the consultant’s work or impressions of the documents should not be disclosed.) Continue reading
Several years ago, I got called for jury duty. Unlike almost everyone else who complains when called for jury duty, I was thrilled. I wanted to be on a jury.
If I was going to have to do my civic duty, I wanted to get something out of it, rather than just sit in the jury pool room all week. After spending time testifying as an expert witness in front of juries, I would now have a chance to be the jury and get a real-life look at what happens in the jury room.
My wish was granted and I was seated on a jury for a misdemeanor criminal case that lasted about a day, then came the moment of truth. The jurors sat down in the jury room and looked at each other. It was clear that at least 10 of the 12 had no idea what was supposed to happen next.
I appointed myself foreperson and began leading the discussion. The facts of the case were pretty clear. The evidence was somewhat limited, and the case really came down to the testimony of the defendant and one witness. The defendant had almost no credibility. Continue reading
The best financial expert witnesses help win cases by artfully and simply communicating the facts through written reports and oral testimonies. And you can learn how to do it.
While waiting in the hallway outside the courtroom to testify as an expert witness, I thought of all the ways my testimony could go wrong. I had hours to contemplate opposing counsel’s questions for me. It was my first time testifying, and I didn’t want to blow it. But I relaxed as I eased into the witness chair and stole a glance at the jury. They were ordinary people who were just hoping to understand my calculations. I led them simply through the financial matters. From the looks on their faces, I think they understood.
In my testimony, I closely followed the main points of my prepared report. The counsel who had hired me showed large exhibits from my report, which illustrated my points. We easily walked the jury (and the judge) through the numbers. Opposing counsel tried but failed to confuse the jury members. I knew I had hit a home run when I saw the foreman nodding each time I made a point. His new understanding of the issues would prove invaluable during jury deliberations.
Competent and convincing expert witnesses are a vital part of cases involving economic damages and other financial calculations. Traditional accounting, financial and fraud examination skills just aren’t enough when it comes to litigation. A financial expert witness must be able to qualify as an expert in court and then effectively communicate in a written report and oral testimony to an opposing lawyer, a judge, and a jury who probably aren’t accountants or fraud examiners. Continue reading
With the challenging economy we’ve had over the last couple of years, people are constantly asking me how business is going. The assumption is that people and companies don’t have money for litigation, and so my business is probably suffering. Fortunately, that is not the case, as my business has been growing tremendously over the last few years.
It is true that businesses and individuals don’t have as much money for litigation, but they still have money and they still have to litigate some things to keep their businesses and lives intact. However, there is a legitimate concern about the legal fees and expert fees that are going to be incurred, and so consumers are choosing wisely. Continue reading
More than two years ago, I mentioned here a news story about a Ponzi scheme called Tri Energy Inc. The Securities and Exchange Commission first took action against the company in 2005:
The Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday obtained a temporary restraining order, an asset freeze, and other emergency relief, in a civil action filed against several individuals and entities alleged to be perpetrating an ongoing affinity fraud and Ponzi scheme. According to the Complaint, defendants have defrauded hundreds of investors of over $12 million by promising returns of 100% or more within 60 days. The Complaint alleges that defendants have been telling investors that these extraordinary profits were to be generated in part by helping an unnamed Saudi Arabian prince move gold from Israel through Luxembourg to the United Arab Emirates. In reality, according to the Complaint, although some money has been paid out to investors, these funds appear to have come from new investor money, and substantial amounts of investor funds have been transferred to bank accounts controlled by the proposed defendants and relief defendants. Continue reading
Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com (NASDAQ:OSTK) has been on a crusade against naked short selling for a couple of years (or more?). It is currently his position that naked short selling is bad. He confirms his belief in this statement on Overstock.com:
Patrick Byrne is waging a fight with Wall Street over naked short selling. He believes that, through the practice of naked shorting, Wall Street is cheating Main Street America and destroying small companies for a profit. Byrne feels that the SEC is failing to protect retail investors and small companies because it has been captured by Wall Street, and that the New York financial press is similarly co-opted. Byrne believes that the SEC’s efforts to eliminate this abusive practice are falling short, not simply for Overstock (which has itself been on the Regulation SHO Threshold list for over two years), but in a way that creates the possibility of systemic risk for our financial world.
So naked short selling is an “abusive practice”? (Notice that there are no qualifiers in the statement above. It simply says that naked shorting is bad.) Continue reading