{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023323615160349854, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.242424242424242, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can ADR improve expert evidence?

Courts have developed numerous procedures to regulate expert evidence. These procedures aim, in large part, to manage experts’ biases. Recently, the Land Court of Queensland created a new procedure called Court Managed Expert Evidence (CMEE). CMEE’s innovation is the addition of an alternative dispute resolution component – an individual who works with experts and lawyers to manage disputes regarding experts’ opinions. In this article, the authors evaluate this advance against the backdrop of the psychology of bias and ADR’s capacity to limit that bias, as well as an interview with President Kingham, who developed CMEE. They conclude CMEE provides some innovations that may counter expert bias in ways existing procedures cannot. Still, it is inherently limited due to the unconscious nature of many biases and the fact that it does not demand reliable knowledge. The authors suggest others consider implementing CMEE, especially in complex matters where the benefits outweigh the costs.