Reviewing and Challenging the Experts Evaluation. Forensic Expert Interview
Review and challenge of expertise.
A survey of the forensic expert
Key Veta approaches
- Teamwork: a multidisciplinary team of experts to close related areas of knowledge and to reinforce the position in the dispute.
- Clear documents clearly communicate the position to the judge with legal design.
- Expert participating in the conflict: participating in all stages of the process, understands his responsibility, proactive and understands the psychology of judges.
- Benchmark pre-trial study: conscientious and credible, it lays the basis for winning the dispute.
Product at the exit
Conclusion of a specialist (review) on examination
Survey of the forensic expert by our expert, either on his own or in couples with a legal lawyer.
The explanation of the expert’s survey is a legal supplement to the position on the essence of the expertise itself.
Who is relevant to the challenge of forensic examination
A party to a dispute that wishes to strengthen its position and to devaluate the position of the opponent.
A key problem in the appointment of re-examination
Practice shows that courts accept review as a means of evidence in contesting examinations. However, one review to decide whether a re-examination is not enough.
The expert’s conclusions will always be unsuccessful to one of the parties to the dispute. Although theoretically the number of repeated examinations is not limited, it is pointless to appoint them indefinitely only because of disagreement with the outcome.
In order to significantly increase the chance of contesting the results of forensic examination, it is not necessary to involve specialists only for the preparation of the review.
The best solution for successful achievement of the goal
Three mandatory tasks are to be performed to convince the court of the need for re-examination:
Since reviewing alone does not allow all of them to be resolved, a comprehensive method should be used.
Our approach consists of three stages:
1
Prepared for review
Preparation of a review is a mandatory step. In it, a specialist can not only point to violations, but also demonstrate how their elimination will lead to a significant change in the final conclusion.
The final document will be written evidence in the case and one of the arguments to which the court will refer when re-examining.
2
A survey of the forensic expert
This step is designed to help the court hear your position. The survey should pay attention to everything that would make the court question the opponent’s position: the expert confused in the answers, could not justify the conclusions, and so on.
When a specialist conducts a survey with a legal lawyer, he helps to navigate faster in the opponent’s replies.
3
Formation of a position on the results of the expert survey
The quality of an expert’s survey entails the meeting. The court paused to formulate its own position on the survey. It needs to be used.
At this time, the audio recording of the meeting should be required, a transcript and additional written explanations on the survey should be created.
Get up, the court is coming!
The case is being heard of bringing the controlling persons to subsidiary liability, joint penalty to the competitive mass of CJSC A of 2136467547.06 rubles.
The expert concluded that there were no signs of deliberate bankruptcy.
You are a lender.
See what endedThe creditor disagreed with the expert’s opinion, suggesting that the expert did not request the necessary documents.
In response, the expert organization provided written explanations on the creditor’s arguments. The Court examined the clarification of experts and concluded that the experts had submitted arguments which denied the creditor’s position, which in fact was “I disagree”.
Forward
- The Court refused to appoint additional expertise and accounting expertise.
- The Court refused to grant the manager and the creditor the application for subsidiary liability.
Since reviewing alone does not allow all of them to be resolved, a comprehensive method should be used.
We were participants in this process and won. To show how the integrated approach works, we will return to the beginning, where the results of the examination were different: the expert concluded that the debtor was deliberately bankrupt in the period XX. XX.20XX to XX. XX.20XX.
We are representatives of CJSC A
How it work
Order
Order
The Court has appointed a re-examination.
The re-examination did not reveal any signs of deliberate bankruptcy.
Fill out the form below to get advice
