Interprofessional Committee Hypothetical Case Report
| Publication year | 1985 |
| Pages | 973 |
| Citation | Vol. 14 No. 6 Pg. 973 |
1985, June, Pg. 973. Interprofessional Committee Hypothetical Case Report
In the interest of improving communication between the professions, hypothetical case reports and case summaries, such as the following, are a periodic feature in The Colorado Lawyer. These reports, generated by the Denver Bar Association Interprofessional Committee, identify interactions where misunderstandings commonly occur between attorneys and other professionals. The hypotheticals are often based on actual disputes submitted to the Committee.
To promote understanding between the professions, these reports are periodically featured in the Denver Medical Bulletin of the Denver Medical Society and other professional publications. The Committee hopes that the reports will provide guidelines for interaction and foster positive relations among the professions. The Committee welcomes written comments or questions in care of: The Denver Bar Association Interprofessional Committee, 1900 Grant St., Suite 950, Denver, CO 80203.
An attorney contacts a professional graphologist by telephone and in person to interview her with regard to her qualifications. The attorney pays a retainer fee and reserves three full days of the expert's time at an agreed-upon rate for the expert to be on call, appear in court, and testify. The expert is retained, and performs work prior to her court appearance. The attorney is regularly billed for the amounts due. The expert has never had direct contact with the attorney's client. After the trial testimony, the attorney sends a final statement back to the expert with a notation that the bill is the client's responsibility and that she should collect from the client.
The attorney claims that he has never indicated that he would be responsible for the expert's fees. Further, the attorney states that, in one conversation with the expert, he advised the expert that the client had lost his job and was in a difficult financial position. The expert acknowledges the conversation but claims to have interpreted the statement to mean that the attorney might delay his payment to her. The expert insists that her contract was with the attorney who advanced the initial funds.
The Interprofessional...
To continue reading
Request your trial