The following comments were contributed to the mailing list, via the listowner, by an experienced professional in the field.

Experts have an over-riding duty to the Court, not to the person instructing them. As such anyone who appears partial can be smeared and their opinions discounted. The advantage of going to a "middle of the road" expert is that if your case is supported you should stand a greater chance of final success. The disadvantage is that the case may founder early should the expert's opinion not be to your liking.

If you have a "hired gun" type of expert the case may appear to go further initially and IF the Defendant has inexperienced advisors they may be induced to settle. But this is a gamble and more experienced advisors would probably know the score and the case could then come off the rails further down the track costing the funding authority (eg a Trades Union) thousands or tens of thousands of pounds. (A case going to the High Court and then failing could cost the losing party hundreds of thousands if not more. A loss of that magnitude could potentially bankrupt a smaller union.)

In life as a whole, I would only say that I feel uneasy in adopting any strategy that relies upon the assumption that the people you are dealing with are fools.

At the end of the day you "pays your money and takes your choice" dependant upon circumstances. The important factor is for the individual to consider what he or she wants from litigation.