Does Attorney-Client Privilege Protect Expert Compensation?

An open red umbrella with a black handle vertically placed above dark grey pavement on stormy sky background. Bad weather. Hostile business environment. Data protection.

A Florida federal magistrate was asked last week to rule on an order requiring production of pre-litigation service agreement relating to the plaintiffs’ expert after in camera review.  

The defendant in the case made a Motion to Compel the Plaintiffs to Respond to its Initial Discovery (“Motion”).  

The district court held a hearing on the Motion and then entered an order on the motion and required that Plaintiffs submit for in camera review the agreement between Plaintiffs and a Miami-area law firm concerning the services of a insurance loss consultant who employed as a pre-litigation consultant, but would also serve as an expert witness at trial testifying on damages. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted the agreement for in camera review to chambers, as required. 

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman said that he had carefully reviewed the one-page document.  

Read how the judge decided the issue at ForensisGroup.