Retained and Non-Retained Experts: Cases After 2010 Amendments to Rule 26(a)(2)

, New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

Mara Leventhal, a partner with Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices, writes that where an expert witness has some first-hand involvement in the underlying facts, recent case law suggests that such expert's designation as "retained" or as "non-retained" and subject to less onerous disclosures, will depend on the sometimes inconsistent application of various factors - including whether the expert opinions to be offered were formed before, during, after, or in anticipation of litigation - even after the 2010 amendments.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202582529762

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.