"> > > Actually, many litigated matters deal with obscure subjects that, amazingly enough, depend upon how thorough an investigation is made and how the results are presented. In my experience, the way things typically go is a surveyor makes an initial assessment of the case and arrives at a reasonable conclusion that he or she then proceeds to assemble a preponderance of evidence to support.
> >
> > If in assembling the evidence you discover that your initial assessment is not supported by the preponderance of evidence do you then change your assessment or the way you present your results?
>
> I've never had that happen that I can recall. If it were ever to, my first obligation would be to notify my client that significant evidence has been discovered that would tend to support an alternate theory other than the one I had advanced.
>
> Having discovered that evidence, naturally, one could not disclaim all knowledge of it under oath. That fact would probably guide a client's counsel in deciding what further use the surveyor might be in the matter being litigated."
Yeah, it's a dangerous thing hiring an expert. One can always decide not to use them if they come up with an opinion detrimental to the case. But the other side will surely call said expert to testify.
In fact the first case I testified in had this situation. The other side had one survey that disagreed with mine. They decided it would be wise to hire another surveyor for another opinion to bolster theirs. Unfortunately (for them), that surveyor agreed with my determination. When they didn't call that surveyor to testify, we of course did. The other side objected but ultimately had to stipulate (in order to avoid the other surveyors direct testimony) that said surveyor agreed with my opinion of the line. The objection was fairly comical under the circumstances. "your honor, are we going to parade an armey of surveyors through the witness box, we already have two, how many do we need"
ON the original question I agree. Disclosure and right to terminate should be sufficient to avoid a conflict.
Sometimes I get the feeling some people don't like Kent so they argue with him although in this case what he is saying more or less fits my limited experience with litigation. According to the Attorneys everything in their presence is privileged; let the other side prove otherwise.
Simplicity or clear cutness doesn't mean they can't drag it out for years.
> Sometimes I get the feeling some people don't like Kent so they argue with him ...
Isn't arguing with Kent half the reason you visit the site? 😉 He regularly needs to be brought back to earth in regards to W. Texas surveying being so incredibly complicated only a genius could figure it out.
All kidding aside, I don't come here to argue with Kent.
Like him or not, he is doing some pretty cool stuff in West Texas. I can imagine some Surveyor in 2050 thinking, "McMillan was here, this job should be easier" or something like that. He's not just sitting in an office somewhere cooking up record boundaries from Deed descriptions.
Look up the definition of "wizened" ... not what you mean
Wizened - to dry up, withered, shrunken, shriveled.
Dagnabit to heck
You are absolutely correct, Cliff. Apparently, I meant "wisened".
wisen
Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
English Verb to wisen (third-person singular simple present wisens, present participle wisening, simple past and past participle wisened)
1.To become wiser.
Usage notes Usually followed by "up": "The ignorant always wisen up." -Charles Neal
I'm with Karoly, I don't want to argue with Kent either.
But...... I have served, on one occasion, as expert for both plaintiff and defendant. I was retained by the Plaintiff's counsel but the defendant's attorney agreed with my methodology and asked the judge to allow me to serve as expert for her, too.
The judge asked for my opinion as I stated, pretty much as Stahl, that I don't think that surveyors have conflicts since we are the eye's of the court and the facts we present and our conclusions are as third party non-interested officers of the court.
One problem most surveyors (and probably many other professions as well) is distinguishing between "having a conflict of interest" and "having the appearance of a conflict of interest".
During a board of registration hearing to get rid of mortgage inspections,
the state realtor association president spoke, "You surveyors just want a
Cadillac law to set all of the corners!" The board of registration president
responded angrily, "We surveyors have employees to pay and expensive equipment
to buy. All you brokers need to operate is a Cadillac, and a hammer to pound in
your sign!!!"