Some weeks ago, we wrote about the qualifications to testify as an expert witness (see The Case of the Inexpert Expert). An expert needs “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” However, unless the proffered expert is also an acknowledged psychic, there are some subjects on which even the most technically proficient individual may not testify. (Bone Care International LLC et al. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.)

Sometimes there is simply no substitute for a true “expert.” (Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP et al.)

Expert witnesses – witnesses who testify as to their “professional” opinions – may be paid for their testimony (actually, they won’t testify unless they are paid). Supposedly, they are paid for their time, the content of their testimony being (again, supposedly) unbiased (apparently because they are “professionals”).

Fact witnesses – witnesses who testify as to facts, i.e. what occurred, may not be paid for their testimony, as it is believed that this could prejudice their testimony (fact witnesses are generally not “professionals”).