@article {Gutheil202, author = {TG Gutheil and ML Commons and PM Miller}, title = {Expert witness billing practices revisited: a pilot study of further data}, volume = {29}, number = {2}, pages = {202--206}, year = {2001}, publisher = {Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online}, 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.}, issn = {1093-6793}, URL = {https://jaapl.org/content/29/2/202}, eprint = {https://jaapl.org/content}, journal = {Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online} }