×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Going to the Dark Side
5

Going to the Dark Side

Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
I'm an engineer considering a career as an attorney. I like being an engineer and want to use the experience and knowledge to move forward in contract law and expert witnessing. Let's hear it.... any thoughts?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

My heary weeps for your loss of innocence, but I'm pretty sure the money will be better.....

Kevin Hammond

Mechanical Design Engineer
Derbyshire, UK
 

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Law is largely the study of case precednets and applcation of that research to the current case (I took the LSAT's a long time ago, was considering much the same).  Coming from a technical background, you probably will have a credence not found in a fresh caught or even always been a lawyer.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Damn,damn,damn......

Its my heart that's weeping, not my heary

Kevin Hammond

Mechanical Design Engineer
Derbyshire, UK
 

RE: Going to the Dark Side

The "expert witnessing" part, I assume, would depend more on your knowledge of the engineering subject at hand than on your legal knowledge, so I don't know that it would really be a factor.  And in fact, ten years from now, if you haven't worked as an engineer for 10 years, I would think that would hurt your credibility as an expert witness.

Otherwise, it's pretty much whatever floats your boat.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

brane23,

   I know a guy who is both a lawyer and a professional engineer.  I think he works mostly in patent law, where, obviously, he has expertise.

   I cannot see a lawyer/engineer being much use as an expert witness.  An expert witness ought to have specialized training in his area of expertise, preferably at the graduate level and subject to a lot of peer review.  A lawyer/engineer would be a "Jack of all trades, master of none."

   Stepping away from the subject of engineering but continuing with expert witnesses, I suggest that you read up on some of the satanic ritual child abuse cases that took place in the eighties in nineties, mostly in the US.  Millions and millions of dollars were spent on investigations and trials, a lot of innocent people were charged, convicted and imprisoned over crimes that were phyically impossible.  All of this was driven by expert witnesses who were poorly trained, not subject to peer review, and sometimes, marginally sane.  There is a reason for standards.

                          JHG

RE: Going to the Dark Side

I guess if you want to be a lawyer, good on ya!

Good luck.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
Expert witnessing aside, contract law will be my focus. Being a council for an expert witness would likely be my involvement more than BEING the expert witness.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Let me tell you something.  Unless you have an English major under your belt as well, you are gonna hate the LSAT more than you have ever hated an exam.  I thought the FE was a walk in the park compared to this monstrosity they call a test.  

If you go that route....


Good Luck

Traitor! :)

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Go for it.

Law is more important than Engineering.

? which came first: differential equations or the 10 Commandments?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Actaully since much of the Big Bang Theory involves the use of Diffy Q -- maybe they did come first!!

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Yeah, but in closed form...

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Engineers can sleep at night with appropiate factors of safety, Lawyers must drink or excise their conscience to be comfortable with the results of the legal system.  "The Law is an ASS!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
Lawyers and engineers think nothing alike, thus their sleep and acceptance of a system that works some of the time... Engineers could not have designed our system of government and legal system. Being a lawyer is accepting that the legal system is a people business, much the way science and mechanics is not. That is where I guess I will be learning to change my thought process.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Dave,

An engineer probably designed the tablets on which the 10 commandments were engraved?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Yeah, and when they came back for the second set, he probably said "geez, if you had told me you were gonna drop test them..."

RE: Going to the Dark Side

If I do become a lawyer, I would probably be a patent lawyer so I can use my engineering degreee.  

RE: Going to the Dark Side

I've known a few lawyers in two very different ways.  Some as my council, and some I've known personally.  In both cases, I've learned why lawyers develop such a bad rep.  In the end, I've come away truly believing that lawyers have no since of morality.  Although, perhaps their "ethics" may not be in question, I really believe they are missing the part of being human called HAVING A SOUL.  

Yes...there is a reason you titled the post "Going to the Dark Side".  Don't kid yourself, there really is a dark world that awaits!!

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Being a systems engineer, I've often thought that being a lawyer would be a natural fit.  I've observed that having a minor in English would have been an absurdly useful thing to have had when interpreting specifications.

Just today, we changed from being non-compliant on a requirement to being compliant, because the requirement hinged on reporting "predictable failures."  Our position was that we could see no relevant failures as being predictable within the constraints of the requirement, therefore, the fact that we would never report a predictable failure was perfectly compliant.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies


RE: Going to the Dark Side

You will probably have to give up your Eng-Tips account if you do go to the dark side

Kevin Hammond

Mechanical Design Engineer
Derbyshire, UK
 

RE: Going to the Dark Side

I'd insist on itsmile

RE: Going to the Dark Side

2
I am an expert witness and consultant for construction defect litigation.  I have known several attorneys who were also architects or engineers.  Lawyering seems to win out over their technical side.  Most of them use their technical expertise to evaluate their consultants, and I’m sure it comes in handy for interpreting reports.

I don’t know if I would necessarily characterize this as the dark side.  I work primarily in class action lawsuits, generally on the defense.  I am hired to defend contractors or subcontractors who are caught up in this system of class action lawsuits. They have not necessarily done anything wrong.   Most have supplied what was specified and built to industry standard.  But deals are cut between the opposing sides that never really rests on the facts.  And it’s never fair.  The deal is the result of the lawyering, not the technical argument.  That’s the sleazy side, especially for someone technically astute.

I think of myself as just one tool in the lawyer’s bag.  If the attorney has some technical expertise of his own then he is more adept at using me as one of his tools for beating the other side.  If I am working with an attorney who lacks basic construction knowledge, the only thing I can do is provide the information and hope that he is not outgunned by the opposing counsel at a mediation or allocation conference.  I love working with the engineer attorneys.  I would suspect that they get better results for their clients as well.

Prior to this line of work I was an expert for the plaintiff, generally on building failures and construction accidents. The cases were more technically interesting, but there was a lot more emotion involved, especially on construction accidents where maiming or death had occurred.  Arguments between attorneys were much more heated and I’m certain this has a negative emotional and physical effect on them, not to mention the effect the accident photos have on their consultants.

By contrast, construction defect law is much calmer.  Insurance carriers cover the expenses for the most part and generally everyone stays rational.

I would go for the law degree.  It’s a long haul, probably 2 years of school, clerking and working as a paralegal, passing the bar, then  getting some experience under your belt.  I would guess about 6 years and you would be ready to be lead counsel.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Damn, You had me scared by that title.  I thought you were going to become a MANAGER!

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
casseopeia - Thanks... I was getting slammed in this forum (just kidding)(sort of)(not really).  How long did you work in industry before you went to law school? Did you obtain your PE? There is an evening program through Duquesne. I could continue working... I know one person who did this. Seems to be quite the challenge...

RE: Going to the Dark Side

In law you just have to know, in engineering you have to understand!

When you sell your soul to the devil, there is no going back.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

brane23,

I'm not an attorney.  I am an architect working as an expert witness, as opposed to the design field.  I need about 30 hours more schooling before I can get a PE. I just work with several attorneys who have enginering or archetctural degrees and I ask them what it has been like.

Yes, this will be a challenge.  It is something you must have a passion for.  I suspect you will find that out pretty soon after you begin law school.  I'd try to get through the formal education portion as quickly as possible and then concentrate on your experience, and passing the bar.  I support your idea.  I think the world needs more attorneys with engineering minds.  It might just fix the legal system a bit.  

csd72 makes a good point.  One of the most irritating aspects of my job is that I am constantly asked to tell someone why something has happened without ever being allowed a full evaluation.  I ask for, and rarely get, the opportunity to do destructive testing or material science evaluations.  That's because the legal theory is that if you find out what really happened, it could implicate the defendant.  If you don't know, you can in good conscience, argue anything.

I know I'm discounting the moral implications of this work.  That's something that does not come easy.  Some of my co-workers find it impossible, in fact.  csd72 is also on target about selling your soul, but then I've had my name emboidered on a crushed red velvet couch right next to Lucifer himslef for a long time, but I don't think it has anything to do with my job winky smile

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Taken completely out of context but none the less...

Quote:

the world needs more attorneys

Are you sure about that?smile

Just teasing, the thing that gets me is how many lawyers etc go on to be politicians.  Perhaps what the world needs is more engineer politicians.

I actually found the law I had to study as part of my degree fairly interesting, and fairly easy, but it was only a very small amount and certainly didn't leave me wanting to be a lawyer.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

I disagree. Bad engineers/lawyers know. Good engineers/lawyers understand.


The world needs more "good" attorneys, plumbers, framers, electricians, politicians, etc......

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Ashereng,

What is there to understand about law? Most of it has no logic, it just is!

RE: Going to the Dark Side

csd72,

I am not sure how to answer you.

So, I guess I will just leave it.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Lawyers are only worthy when we need them to get our arse out of a sling whether it be personal or professional.  Lawyers are experts in the field of Situational ethics.

I have a good friend that practices Tort Law and the stories he has told me it's no wonder lawyers have a bad image.

You don't need to be a lawyer to be an expert witness.  You just need to be an expert in your field.  In fact, I think you would be more credible without a law degree.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

casseopia,

You say you need 30 more school hours before you can get your PE.  From other Eng-Tips threads I have gathered that practising without a PE was illegal in (most of) the USA.  I would have thought that being an expert witness would require PE certification to make your evidence valid.

I'm not knocking your post - most interesting.  I'm just a bit more confused about the whole American PE thing than I was before I read it.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Heckler,

'Lawyers are experts in the field of Situational ethics.'

Fantastic quote, but I do know that if you mention the word ethics near a lawyer one of two things will happen. Either the lawyer will start to sweat a lot, or pound (dollar) signs will roll down from the top of his/her eyes

Kevin Hammond

Mechanical Design Engineer
Derbyshire, UK
 

RE: Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
I don't think that's in the US.. You get your accredited degree... take the FE... wait 3,000 years... take the PE. That's it.

RE: Going to the Dark Side


SomptingGuy,

That only applies if it gets drawn, stamped and built.  Any minor amount of engineering (mostly structural steel design) I’ve done here is reviewed by my boss, who is a licensed engineer.  And evidence is evidence.  It is no less ‘valid’ whether observed by a double PHD or by a homeowner who drives a garbage truck.

The bulk of my testimony is what I would call standard of care or construction technique. There is also a fair amount of contract law, or construction administration that gets included.  My main areas of expertise are masonry, stucco, concrete, sealant, waterproofing, flashing, and industrial coatings.  A general knowledge of structural engineering principals comes in handy, along with chemistry, and industrial hygiene for the mold claims.
  
My most recent testimony involved a log cabin where I had to talk about everything but the logs.   That case hinged on the quality of the architectural drawings which were very poor versus the quality of the improvements to the residence which were actually quite good.  There were other experts who were brought in including a young man whose family had been manufacturing log cabins for a very long time.  He might have had a contractors license, but he was not an engineer nor an architect.  But he knew log cabins, their history and their construction inside out.  His family lived, ate and breathed log cabins.  Similarly, I come from a family that has been in stone, brick and marble construction for generations.

There is no requirement for licenser as an expert here in the US.  What you have to be is believable and generally unassailable by a competing expert.  The attorneys will quickly go through your CV and pick it apart, but in the end, if you are firm in your convictions and good at explaining why you hold a particular opinion, the details of the CV are log forgotten by judge and jury.

One of the sweetest moments I had in a deposition is when the opposing counsel didn’t believe that my family actually sat around on Thanksgiving arguing the proper way to repoint large limestone panels, until I called my 68 year old Uncle and put him on a speaker phone and let the attorney talk to him directly.  My Uncle not only backed up my story, but said I had won the family argument.  Sometimes you just have to be a big blow-hard.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

SomptingGuy,

I wasn't aware that you need to be a PE to be an expert witness.

You can be an expert in something, even without a degree.

In the US, from what I gather, most engineers actually "practice" without a PE.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

"You can be an expert in something, even without a degree."

But surely the courts/juries would need credentials of your expertise?  I simply assumed that US (state) courts would require proof of engineering expertise & experience in the form of bits of paper from appropriate bodies.

Not arguing, just interested.  What makes an expert?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

By all means, argue/debate/discuss. That is also what this forum is for.

Yes, degrees, credentials from associations, letters after your name, they all confer a certain "patina" of expertness. By the same token, we have all worked with or known people who have degrees, credentials, etc. that we consider "unknowledgeable" (check out Eng-Tips).

I am not sure what makes an expert. For myself, I think several things collectively would persuade me to believe someone is an expert.
- degrees (certainly)
- professional association (definitely)
- publications (books, research papers, etc)
- recognition by other people in that industy
- someone I know vouching for their expertness
- years of experience

If any one is missing, it probably doesn't make much difference. If too many things are missing, then I would be less inclined to believe the "expert" part.

An expert witness in a court of law would face the same issues to the judge and/or jury. Chances are, if one side has an "expert", the other side does too. So, how does one convice something that they are more "expert" than the other guy?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

have you guys ever seen "my cousin vinny?"  marissa tomei's character was an "expert" in cars because everyone to her paternal great x 5 grandfather was a mechanic.

*shrug*

oh yea, i also thought about law school once.....but was never sure if i'd ever be able to use anything that i learned because i loved engineering too much.

RE: Going to the Dark Side


I have obviously failed to communicate this concept.  I’ll try a something different.

Say SomptingGuy owns a log cabin.  He moves in and decides that his log cabin needs a drywall interior and elastomeric paint on the outside to change it’s color inside and out.  Log cabins, being made of logs, will eventually turn to compost.  You can just imagine this happening looking at fallen trees in the forest or in your yard.  Log cabins actually settle a bit every year as the wood naturally decays.  There is not much you can do to prevent this.  But SomptingGuy decides he wants a different color, and not knowing anything about log cabins, proceeds to paint the outside a very dark brown and install drywall, with a vapor barrier, on the inside.

SomptingGuy has thus created a petrie dish for the logs to cook in their own juices, hastening their decay.  Compare this to putting your fallen tree into a compost bin.  The decay will be sped up by the heat and moisture retention.

SomptingGuy decides to sue.  His first expert, Big Structural Man, PhD, PE, SE and whatever else you would like to tack on to his name, has NO experience whatsoever in log cabins, but he's published lots of structural papers and is generally recognized as an excellent engineer and scientist.  He has never even seen a log cabin, nor lived in one, nor built one.  At trial, the attorney goes through Big Structural Man’s CV and asks all the pertinent questions, but Big Structural Man has to admit that even though he carries a PE in every single State in the US, he has no direct experience with log cabins.  In fact, when he talks about log cabins he hems and haws and generally sounds very unsure of himself.  He is a good scientist, but as such, he must admit that he does not have direct experience, except for designing a cantilevered balcony for a friend's cabin in the Adirondacks.

Thinking through the above scenario, SomptingGuy decides to interview a 25 year old architectural candidate recommended by his attorney.  Turns out, this young woman knows all about log cabins.  Her family has made them for 5 generations.  She grew up in one and helped her father build a bigger one when their family expanded.  They keep tabs on all the industry happenings and go to all the trade shows.  They discuss the family business at the dinner table.  When she talks about log cabins, she is direct and sure of her information and facts.  She presents this information very well since she has been doing trade shows since she was 11 years old.  Not only that, but she is a regular person, without lofty credentials with whom a jury can identify.  She describes the compost analogy and the non-engineers sitting in the jury box instantly understand.

That’s all they have to remember.  SomptingGuy plaintiff turned his own log cabin into compost, just like we have in the yard.  We’ll give him a little money to cover his legal fees, but he will be out of luck on that $5 million claim to replace his residence.

The courts/judge/lawyer have no say in you selection of your expert, other than the requirement to disclose their name and CV prior to trial.  You decide which expert is best for your case as part of you legal strategy.

If you think the letters and publications will sway the jury best, use Big Structural Guy.  If you think the jury will like the other expert better, use that one.  I'm sure you've seen cases where it's just one expert pitted against the other.  If it all came down to who has the longer CV, testimony would be unnecessary.  Just measure the number of inches of typed credentials.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Oh, good. For a while I was worried that the world was runing short of lawyers.

No matter how smart you think are, take a prep course to prepare for the LSAT.  It definitely helps.  I recommend Kaplan.  I used to teach LSAT for Kaplan and for Princeton Review.  Kaplan is more thorough and professional.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

This is from the Texas state board rules:
"(c) The practice of engineering includes:
(1) consultation, investigation, evaluation, analysis, planning, engineering for program management, providing an expert engineering opinion or testimony, engineering for testing or evaluating materials for construction or other engineering use, and mapping;"

The courts may not care if a witness is licensed or not.  But if that witness is giving an expert ENGINEERING opinion or testimony, then that person is practicing engineering and needs to be licensed, by the state rules.

In your example above, they might or might not consider testimony on log rot as engineering.  If it's not, I'd say you're fairly close to it, though.

RE: Going to the Dark Side


Take your pick from the links below.  Not one glossary mentions a requirement that an individual have a license of any kind, only special training and or knowledge to be an expert.  And, unless you are hired as a joint expert (used by both plaintiff and defendant), the opposing side can always question your credentials, even if you are a licensed engineer.  The one I get all the time is ‘well I see you are a licensed architect, but do you have a contractor’s license.’

And as far as log rot, or more properly, wood decay, I don't think it's as close to structural engineering as it is to botany or microbiology.  My guess is a structural engineer would get shut down fairly quickly if he tried to testify about the mechanism of decay.

BTW, a little factoid I've picked up from decay cases.  The 'mushrooms' that grow out of trees or on other decaying materials is not the fungus, but is the 'fruiting body'.  The type of fungus can be identified by it's fruiting body and a conclusion drawn from where the moisture came to cause the decay in the first place and how much moisture was available to continue the decay.  That testimony came from a mycologist. (I just like saying fruiting body.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

http://www.it-expert-witness.co.uk/glossary.htm

http://www.adlergiersch.com/legal.cfm

http://www.massrelaw.org/glossary/e.htm

http://www5.aaos.org/oko/vb/online_pubs/professional_liability/glossary.cfm


While I am sure there are many cases in construction defect law that involve a defect in engineering, building structural failure or collapse, my guess is that most lawsuits here in California are brought due to water infiltration of some kind, usually from precipitation, and not groundwater.  After that, I’d say cosmetic defects are a close second.  Very rarely have I seen bad engineering, but then that’s not really my area of expertise.  As far as root cause, I'd say poor design and very poorly executed drawings and specifications play a major role, along with sequencing of construction.

brane23, The Tick has a very good suggestion for studying for the LSAT.  You might also do a bit of research into what kind of cases are prevalent.  Mold is still pretty big becasue there is always a lot of award money available for personal injury.  If is just property damage, there are a lot fewer dollars to go around.  


"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side


brane23,

I just remembered something that I should add. A vast number of cases are simply disputes about money, usually a mechanics lien where the owner has refused to pay the contractor.  No experts required, except for possibly a forensic accountant to track down the assets of the debtor.  I imagine as an attorney you would have plenty of those types of cases. The engineering background won’t be very useful to you.  It might be good to throw in some construction administration procedure(found architectural courses) and some accounting in your education.  

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Factual testimony can be requested for free, "expert opinion" must be paid for and only PEs are legally allowed to express an engineering opinion. The homeowner driving the garbage truck can be asked factual questions for free as can a engineer, the opinions come from expertise and must be paid for.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

Thanks Casseopeia,
For a brief moment I was actually beginning to believe the US system was above the rest of the worlds' in terms of logical debating and weighing of actual facts, etc. At least in a foreign country you can bribe the "Law" cheaply and they go away and leave you alone.

The fact that you have confirmed my previous suspicions that the court system is really just a popularity contest and highway robbery with "the Law" putting the gun to peoples' backs is pretty damning of Law and the Courts. Sounds to me like a second career as a lawyer would ruin an Engineer. Much easier to be a lawyer though.

Is there any way to write design contracts to protect oneself from frivolous lawsuits and limit exposure?

Can you recommend what type of work to steer clear of?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

wjsd, The legal system here in the US is not about 'finding the truth', it is about winning the case.  That is probably the most difficult concept to absorb as an engineer.  But I know a few attorney/engineers and have generally liked them over the others because of their approach and logical thought process.  I don't think becoming an attorney ruins the engineer, but it definitely imrpoves the legal professional.  And there is no way you can ever avoid a frivolous lawsuit.  Anyone can sue you for anything.  The best you can hope for is a summary judgement (good freaking luck).

As a last flog at this dead horse, I’d just like to add that I am concerned about some of the misinformation.  If you work on construction sites, there is a possibility that somewhere in your career you will have to testify.  Testimony not only refers to in court testimony, but at the beginning of the discovery process in deposition.  Do not let an attorney bully you into something that is patently unfair.  It is only reasonable that you be compensated for your costs.  You are not at their mercy.  Yes you have to go if you receive a subpoena, but no one can dispute your own memory of the events.  They can only offer their own recollections.

Factual testimony is made by a percipient witness, sometimes referred to as a material witness and the states where I have testified are required to pay your expenses.  Those costs are usually travel and lost wages.  I would find it hard to believe that any jurisdiction could force you to ‘testify for free’.  There is usually a nominal travel reimbursement, something similar to serving jury duty.

If an attorney subpoened me, forcing me to use my vacation time and travel to the court on my own nickel, I believe I would suffer an extreme lapse of memory and not remember anything that happened that day.  Or I’d remember only the stuff damaging to the side that subpoened and refused pay basic expenses.  

Also, if you are an architect, engineer or other construction professional and you testify as a percipient witness, you can in fact, be asked questions where you render an opinion as a design or construction specialist.  You do not necessarily have to limit your testimony to the facts.  This link is a pretty good ‘testimony 101’.
http://www.dcd.com/oleary/oleary_ja_2005.html

Off hand I can recall four construction accident cases where I testified as a material witness.  I was on site while working for either the structural design engineer or consulting engineer (erection procedure).  In two of the cases, I am certain that I had not yet passed the architectural exam, or maybe just parts of it.  I was asked not only what I witnessed, but my own opinions about the events because of my capacity as a representative of the engineer and design professional.  It was up to the other side to offer up testimony that might counter what I had to say.  As an employee, I received my standard pay.  I don’t recall if my employer was compensated my billing rate.



Also, just because you have a piece of paper that says you have passed a test and are current with your licensing fees, it does not mean you are unassailable in court.  Not all construction specialists are PE’s or architects.  Sometimes the weight of experience can trump a license.  Personally I would have more respect for a builder who has spent a lifetime successfully constructing complex structures over some blowhard PE with a pocket protector who never got his shoes dirty.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

RE: Going to the Dark Side

casseopia,

I tried to make my viewpoint clear from the tone of my posts but clearly failed.  I am just amazed that in a country SO obsessed with bits of paper, with such a litigious culture and with such a history of ridiculous verdicts that the "professional" (whatever that means) status of an expert witness isn't questioned.

From a common sense point of view it's obvious to me that experience trumps paperwork in most expert situations.  However, what does common sense have to do with law?

RE: Going to the Dark Side

"Not one glossary mentions a requirement that an individual have a license of any kind"

You seem to miss the point here.  It isn't the court that requires licensing for engineers, it is state engineering rules.  It isn't because you have to be licensed for your opinion to be worthwhile, it's because engineers are required to be licensed to practice engineering in general, and that is one aspect of practicing engineering.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
I'm not sure who argues more.... engineers or lawyers. At least lawyers get paid to do it.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

engineers argue way more.  

it's because we think we know everything.  

at least that's what the biggest reason i've heard, lol.  

RE: Going to the Dark Side

(OP)
I disagree... haha, j/k.

RE: Going to the Dark Side

On my wife's side of the family there are numerous lawyers. At a recent reunion, I found out that they are primarily in real estate practice. Perhaps they are avoiding the dark and dirty corners of legal practice.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources