brane23
Structural
- Feb 7, 2006
- 50
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?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Going to the Dark Side 5
- Thread starter brane23
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
"(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.
casseopeia
Structural
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.)
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!"
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.)
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!"
casseopeia
Structural
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!"
civilperson
Structural
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.
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?
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?
casseopeia
Structural
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’.
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!"
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’.
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!"
SomptingGuy
Automotive
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?
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?
"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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #50
- Thread starter
- #52
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
