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 TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Structural Expert Witness Fees 4
- Thread starter JAE
- Start date
-
3
- #2
JAE...since a lot of my practice is litigation support, failure investigation, and expert testimony, I use the same rate for all, whether it is investigation, research, deposition testimony, or trial testimony. I also charge the same rate for travel time.
The only distinction I make is between litigation and non-litigation projects. For litigation, my current rate is $200 per hour unless it is an existing client with whom I already have projects going or an existing relationship. For that condition, usually $175 per hour, though I still have a few hanging around for less. There is a chance I will raise my rate this year, though I haven't decide yet.
My commercial consulting rate varies between $150 and $175, mostly for specialized stuff. For public agencies, we usually are stuck with an audited rate based on salary X multiplier.
Arguments can be made for using higher rates for testimony than other activities on a project. These include...more personal pressure, being a slave to court schedules, etc. The opposite argument can be made that if you charge more for certain aspects, it is just a "gravy" add-on for the "high profile" work, which can be used to discredit you on the stand. My logic behind this all this is that my time is worth essentially the same all the time. That way I can honestly testify that I am not just tacking on charges because of the litigation (insurance companies always think you're out to screw them on fees anyway, so they'll use these things as arguments not to pay the whole bill).
The next argument that comes up is whether you should only do work for defense. I am a firm believer that my answers must be the same without regard to who pays the ticket. Sometimes my answers match the case of the defense, sometimes not. I do mostly defense work, but to maintain objectivity I will occasionally do plaintiff work if their premise fits with my assessment. I have never "shopped" the other side in a case and do not plan to do so. I have seen that happen, however.
The only distinction I make is between litigation and non-litigation projects. For litigation, my current rate is $200 per hour unless it is an existing client with whom I already have projects going or an existing relationship. For that condition, usually $175 per hour, though I still have a few hanging around for less. There is a chance I will raise my rate this year, though I haven't decide yet.
My commercial consulting rate varies between $150 and $175, mostly for specialized stuff. For public agencies, we usually are stuck with an audited rate based on salary X multiplier.
Arguments can be made for using higher rates for testimony than other activities on a project. These include...more personal pressure, being a slave to court schedules, etc. The opposite argument can be made that if you charge more for certain aspects, it is just a "gravy" add-on for the "high profile" work, which can be used to discredit you on the stand. My logic behind this all this is that my time is worth essentially the same all the time. That way I can honestly testify that I am not just tacking on charges because of the litigation (insurance companies always think you're out to screw them on fees anyway, so they'll use these things as arguments not to pay the whole bill).
The next argument that comes up is whether you should only do work for defense. I am a firm believer that my answers must be the same without regard to who pays the ticket. Sometimes my answers match the case of the defense, sometimes not. I do mostly defense work, but to maintain objectivity I will occasionally do plaintiff work if their premise fits with my assessment. I have never "shopped" the other side in a case and do not plan to do so. I have seen that happen, however.
- Thread starter
- #3
JAE...you are probably seeing what a lot of other engineers are faced with. As engineering firms are becoming more and more controlled by "bean counters", the ethical constraints to which we have always been held get stretched and torn. I've seen this with "business types" and with retread engineers who become "business types". It seems that when our colleagues become bean counters they forget "from whence they came"! Obviously engineering firms have to make money, but it can still be done with quality and without subverting ethics.
It would be interesting to ask a few of those "non-practicing" engineers who now only read the P&L statements if they would be willing to turn in their licenses!
It would be interesting to ask a few of those "non-practicing" engineers who now only read the P&L statements if they would be willing to turn in their licenses!
Given that the subject is "expert witness", higher fees are indeed justified. The reason is that the witness should be considered a "specialist" in the area considered. Specialist fees use a higher multiple on staff rates.
The analogy is you get sick and go see your Doctor who is a General Practitioner(GP) the GP suspects you have a brain tumour, sends you for some tests, and after you have your head examined, confirms that there is indeed something wrong. The GP recommends surgery, to be performed by a Neurosurgeon, a "specialist". It has been a while since I had my head examined, but I think when it is determined that something is seriously wrong, higher fees for the specialist, who will have a significant impact on the outcome of the surgery (result of trial)are justified and necessary. Of course you could have the GP drill holes in your head if you so desire, but I wouldn't recommend it.
The analogy is you get sick and go see your Doctor who is a General Practitioner(GP) the GP suspects you have a brain tumour, sends you for some tests, and after you have your head examined, confirms that there is indeed something wrong. The GP recommends surgery, to be performed by a Neurosurgeon, a "specialist". It has been a while since I had my head examined, but I think when it is determined that something is seriously wrong, higher fees for the specialist, who will have a significant impact on the outcome of the surgery (result of trial)are justified and necessary. Of course you could have the GP drill holes in your head if you so desire, but I wouldn't recommend it.
tps,
I don't think that the neurosurgeon analogy is accurate in this case. The billing rate of a specialist vs. a general practitioner is not at issue here. Staying with this theme, the original question would be:
Should a neurosurgeon charge more for his time when testifying in a lawsuit than he does when he is operating on someone? If so, why?
I don't think that the neurosurgeon analogy is accurate in this case. The billing rate of a specialist vs. a general practitioner is not at issue here. Staying with this theme, the original question would be:
Should a neurosurgeon charge more for his time when testifying in a lawsuit than he does when he is operating on someone? If so, why?
TPS...the question is not whether higher fees are justified because of the specialty, but whether the specialist should charge higher fees just because it is expert testimony. Should one charge more for the answer just because there is a different audience?
To continue your analogy...if the GP charges you $50 for an office visit for each of your common maladies, but he has done some specialized work on bruises caused by a hammer applied to the thumbs of careless carpenters, and you go to him after whacking your thumb with a hammer, should he charge you more to look at your thumb, even though you are not a carpenter?
To continue your analogy...if the GP charges you $50 for an office visit for each of your common maladies, but he has done some specialized work on bruises caused by a hammer applied to the thumbs of careless carpenters, and you go to him after whacking your thumb with a hammer, should he charge you more to look at your thumb, even though you are not a carpenter?
Guest
Ok...so I came to this sight in search of some personal answers and became intriqued by your ethical conversations. I'm a homeowner and while finishing a basement room discovered a buckled foundation. Three - that is 3! - structual engineers I called refused to even speak with me let alone come out and see the work (for appropriate fees, mind you) because the "city" I live in may be at fault over the damage. "Too busy to be interested - " and so on.
Where does a a non-technical human person find some help?
Barbara Sayble, Glacier3@mediaone.com
Where does a a non-technical human person find some help?
Barbara Sayble, Glacier3@mediaone.com
Ms. Sayble,
It is unfortunate that the engineers you called are giving the impression of a lack of objectivity. Hopefully they are all currently doing work for your "city" and would consider this, perhaps, a conflict of interest. I will give my colleagues the benefit of doubt, but nonetheless, you still need help with your issue. Also consider that while the result appears to be a structural issue, the cause might very well be unrelated to structure, thus another discipline of engineering might need to be involved rather than a structural engineer.
I would suggest that you contact a reputable Geotechnical engineer in your area to look at the problem. You might first talk to a local firm, rather than one of the national firms as many large firms have prohibitions against working for homeowners. Working for individual homeowners or associations of homeowners usually translates to engineers as problematic, emotionally charged issues, with a poor payment history.
Since you have indicated your willingness to pay, you might offer a retainer against which the engineer will work. Expect to pay on an hourly rate and expect to pay somewhere between $90 and $125 per hour for all time involved (yes, we charge for travel time, too!), depending upon your locale and the experience of the engineer involved. Please make sure that the person you engage is a Registered Professional Engineer (a P.E.), licensed to practice in your area, and experienced in the investigation of failures of this type.
Good luck and post again after you have contacted someone to let us know how it worked out.
It is unfortunate that the engineers you called are giving the impression of a lack of objectivity. Hopefully they are all currently doing work for your "city" and would consider this, perhaps, a conflict of interest. I will give my colleagues the benefit of doubt, but nonetheless, you still need help with your issue. Also consider that while the result appears to be a structural issue, the cause might very well be unrelated to structure, thus another discipline of engineering might need to be involved rather than a structural engineer.
I would suggest that you contact a reputable Geotechnical engineer in your area to look at the problem. You might first talk to a local firm, rather than one of the national firms as many large firms have prohibitions against working for homeowners. Working for individual homeowners or associations of homeowners usually translates to engineers as problematic, emotionally charged issues, with a poor payment history.
Since you have indicated your willingness to pay, you might offer a retainer against which the engineer will work. Expect to pay on an hourly rate and expect to pay somewhere between $90 and $125 per hour for all time involved (yes, we charge for travel time, too!), depending upon your locale and the experience of the engineer involved. Please make sure that the person you engage is a Registered Professional Engineer (a P.E.), licensed to practice in your area, and experienced in the investigation of failures of this type.
Good luck and post again after you have contacted someone to let us know how it worked out.
-
1
- #10
Ms. Sayble,
Save yourself a few dollars and contact your local building inspector. I expect to be slammed by a few here, but even though your building inspector may not be an engineer, he will be more familiar with what happens to basement in your town, how they are repaired, and how can repair them properly, than the geotechnical engineer you find in the phone book.
I would exercise some caution if the inspector recommends only one contractor, and regardless who he recommends, get three quotes for the work, and make sure you get what you want in a signed contract before any work begins.
Something you may want to consider is a retained amount (10 % to 15% of the total bill) that the contractor will get after the work is completed, and you are satisfied, say after a couple of heavy rains.
Save yourself a few dollars and contact your local building inspector. I expect to be slammed by a few here, but even though your building inspector may not be an engineer, he will be more familiar with what happens to basement in your town, how they are repaired, and how can repair them properly, than the geotechnical engineer you find in the phone book.
I would exercise some caution if the inspector recommends only one contractor, and regardless who he recommends, get three quotes for the work, and make sure you get what you want in a signed contract before any work begins.
Something you may want to consider is a retained amount (10 % to 15% of the total bill) that the contractor will get after the work is completed, and you are satisfied, say after a couple of heavy rains.
To ASDF....I would not recommend a local building inspector for an issue as potentially serious as the one Ms. Sayble described. Their technical training is usually pointed toward code interpretation and not evaluative in scope. Their experience is usually anecdotal for repair of the obvious, without determining the cause.
This issue requires determination of cause prior to jumping into a fix. There's a pretty good chance that the problem stems from a construction issue, so it makes no sense to let an inspector or a contractor design a mitigation method.
This issue requires determination of cause prior to jumping into a fix. There's a pretty good chance that the problem stems from a construction issue, so it makes no sense to let an inspector or a contractor design a mitigation method.
To expound on Ron's reply...a reputable building inspector will correctly identify the problem (based on past experience more or less) and refer you to a firm which specializes in this type of work. Thus by working with the building inspector you wind up with one or more firms that do this type of work. This is something you could have done by looking in the yellow pages!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question