Abstract
This pilot study follows up an earlier study of the strategies and rationales by which psychiatric expert witnesses bill for their time on a case. Questionnaires were answered by participants at a workshop at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL). In this follow-up, additional novel billing issues were addressed, some subtler than in the original study. In addition, responses to one question supported the previous finding that experts billed more reasonably when a case was simple. Additional issues included use of fee agreements and returning an unpaid-for case. The implications of these findings are discussed.
