ICC Digital Library Forum

According to the last reported information in the ICC Banking Commission meetings, there are about 90 plus ICC DOCDEX Experts appointed by the ICC International Centre for Expertise to adjudicate disputes arising out of or related to UCP 500, URR 525, URC 522 and URDG, according to sub Article 1.1 of ICC Publication No. 811, the DOCDEX Rules.

We understand that in the appointment letter, it is stated that the appointed ICC DOCDEX Experts are not allowed to expose their identity as such in public or to use this identity to promote their businesses.

However, we do note that over the years, certain ICC DOCDEX Experts do include this identity in their C. V., particularly in brochures of seminars or in the handouts. Maybe they have a bad memory and have no intention to break the rules. We know some of them and they are nice people. However, we also note that most Experts do observe these restrictions.

This observation inspires us to re-think whether this restriction is reasonable or not?

Of course, when they are specifically appointed to adjudicate a particular dispute, then, of course they have to hide their identity for obvious reasons. That is why we call a DOCDEX Expert a "Batman" as s/he also performs goods deeds without disclosure of his/er identity.

However, when they are idle, without any specific assignment from ICC International Centre for Expertise, should they be allowed to disclose their identity in public, particularly when they are not bankers? That is the issue we wish to discuss.

We would like to hear the opinions from members. We will join the discussion when necessary.

www.tolee.com

[edited 11/16/02 4:13:31 PM]

CATCH 22

For anyone who might like to contribute to this discussion, it would be important to know whether or not they are DOCDEX experts, but if they refuse to contribute because they do not wish to expose the fact that they are DOCDEX experts, this would tend to bias contributions in favour of those who are not. Hence my above title.

Laurence

Laurence,

WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE PARTY

The Discussion Forum is open to every member. So everybody is welcome to voice his/er views, which can be different. That is freedom of speech and democracy. For certain issues, there is no absolute right or wrong, all depending on how one looks at the issues.

As long as one does not say he or she is a DOCDEX Expert, it is OK.

OUR STANDARDIZED RESPONSE

For example, I am often asked in the workshops around the world whether I am a DOCDEX Expert by those who are curious about the identity of the presenter/speaker. My standardized response is:

“You guess! A title is not very important. Some consultants and experts may be even better than a DOCDEX Expert. The best thing to measure a consultant is to look at the articles s/he writes and the number of cases that s/he has won for their clients”.

After hearing this, they would be more bewildered as it appears from my response that I am not a DOCDEX Expert. Suspense is good to increase interest amongst the audience. They will then throw out more difficult questions to find this out. That is good for both the presenter and the audience.

We all learn more this way.

www.tolee.com

[edited 11/18/02 3:11:22 PM]

T.O.

I have read your answer to the question about whether or not one is a DOCDEX expert, but what did you say when you were first asked this question ? I suspect it would be similar to the response I usually give to the same question - check the depth and breadth of knowledge and experience of the consultant and decide from this if the person is or equates to a DOCDEX expert.
Writing articles requires a skill somewhat different to advising a client when acting as an expert witness or judging the technical issues of a DOCDEX case. Winning court cases or not may be determined on issues other than the advice given to a client.


Laurence

Laurence,

A real DC expert or consultant would not commit suicide by accepting unworkable cases. That is why we say that the number of winning cases do determine whether or not he or she is a good expert, equivalent to or even exceeding that of the DOCDEX Expert.


His/er ability to estimate the probable outcome of the dispute case before him/er is not a skill born with him/er. It takes a lot of hard work, talent, sound judgement, sense of logic and experience.

Let us come back to the issue, whether it is unreasonable to restrict a DOCDEX Expert to disclose his/er identity in public, particularly when he or she is not a banker?

To tell you the truth, I work until 4 am tonight for an Expert’s Report urgently required by a law firm and out of curiosity, I peek at the Discussion Forum.

After this brief posting, I am going to bed right now.

Good night!

www.tolee.com
Please note that this is time in Dublin not Toronto time.

[edited 11/19/02 9:31:17 AM]

CLARIFICATIONS ON THE ROLE OF AN EXPERT

When I woke up this morning and try to review what I have wrote late last night, I need to make some further inputs to ensure that I have not misled members.

Choosing a winning case is important or otherwise an expert may later face pressure from his/er clients to state in his/er report only those things that are favourable to him/er. This is human nature for the clients but as a court expert witness, s/he has a duty to the court of law to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unfavourable opinions to the clients included.

DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

There is no choice as this is the legal liability of a court expert witness. S/he cannot behave like an advocate of his/er clients, even under strong pressure, such as possibility of dismissal by the clients. So sooner or alter s/he has to retreat. Then why not refuse the weak case right from the beginning?

So choosing a very weak case is looking for troubles for an expert. Only in this sense I mean s/he is equivalent to committing a suicide.

T. O.

[edited 11/19/02 6:25:29 PM]