{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01647058823529412, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.303703703703704, '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}}
Are The Courts Unintentionally Promoting Unethical Behavior In Business Valuators?

Abstract The expert business valuator’s primary responsibility is to assist the Court in the understanding of complex financial and economic issues impacting the valuation of an asset or damages claim. The Courts expect valuation opinions that are unbiased and impartial. But empowering the advocate-lawyers to select and engage those valuators misaligns the reward system. The reward the expert valuator seeks is the engagement itself – being appointed to the case. The current system of lawyer-engaged experts acts as an impediment towards absolute impartiality. Court-appointed experts may be the easiest means of eliminating role-conflict and realigning the reward system so that the expert valuator is focused upon the primary goal of serving the Court’s needs.