Clinical experience is a starting point. What actually holds up in court is something many instructing solicitors overlook until it is too late.

By Dr Anup Singh  |  Bond Solon Certified GP Expert Witness  |  England and Wales

Most solicitors start their search the same way. They look for a GP with strong clinical experience. They check how long the doctor has been practising. They might look at NHS background or relevant specialist training. These things matter. But they are not enough on their own.

The problem is that being a good doctor and being a good expert witness are two entirely different skills. A GP who has spent thirty years seeing patients may have no formal understanding of CPR Part 35. They may not know how to structure a report so that breach of duty and causation are addressed separately. They may write in clinical language that a judge simply cannot follow. And when opposing counsel tests their reasoning under cross examination the gaps begin to show.

This is not a rare situation. It happens across clinical negligence cases in England and Wales more often than the legal profession tends to acknowledge.

The certification that signals court readiness

Bond Solon is the most respected expert witness training provider in the UK. Their programme is accredited by Cardiff University and it covers everything a medico-legal expert needs before they step anywhere near a courtroom or tribunal. That includes understanding the overriding duty to the court. It covers how to write a CPR compliant report. It addresses how to approach joint statements and how to give evidence that holds up when tested by skilled counsel.

When a GP expert witness holds Bond Solon certification it tells you something concrete. It tells you they have been trained to write reports that meet the legal standard and not just the clinical standard. For a solicitor building a case that may end up in front of a judge that distinction is worth paying close attention to.

The most damaging expert report is not one that is medically wrong. It is one that is medically sound but legally unworkable. A report built on the wrong structure can undermine a strong case from the inside.

Why a GP can be the right expert across many case types

There is a common assumption that specialists are always the better choice for expert evidence. In some cases that is true. But in primary care negligence claims a GP expert witness is often far better placed to assess what happened and why.

GPs see the full picture. They understand how primary care systems work under real world pressure. They know what a reasonable GP would and would not have done at a given point in a patient's care. A specialist commenting on primary care decisions can sometimes appear removed from the everyday realities of general practice and that can show in their evidence.

The kinds of cases where a GP expert witness is well placed to assist include the following.

• Missed or delayed diagnosis in primary care settings
• Failure to refer including cancer and cardiac presentations
• Medication errors and prescribing failures
• Mental health management and risk assessment failures
• Coronial proceedings where cause of death and adequacy of care are in question
• Fitness to Practise cases before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service

This range makes a well qualified GP expert one of the more versatile instructions available to a clinical negligence team.

The value of MPTS experience that most experts do not have

There is one credential that comes up rarely but carries real weight in the right cases. That is direct experience sitting as a medical member of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

An expert who has sat on MPTS panels has seen from the inside how expert evidence is reviewed and tested in tribunal proceedings. They know what a tribunal looks for. They know where reports tend to fall short. They understand how independent an expert genuinely needs to be for their opinion to carry weight in that setting.

For solicitors instructed on Fitness to Practise matters this kind of background in an expert is a practical advantage. It is not just about clinical knowledge. It is about understanding how the tribunal actually thinks.

Working for both sides shows genuine independence

CPR Part 35 is clear that an expert witness owes their primary duty to the court and not to the party instructing them. That principle sounds straightforward but in practice many experts only ever work for claimants or only ever work for defendants. That pattern is noticed by opposing counsel and it can be used to question the expert's independence.

An expert who accepts instructions from both claimant and defendant solicitors demonstrates genuine impartiality in the most direct way. Their opinions cannot easily be dismissed as coming from someone who always argues one side. That credibility matters when a case moves toward a joint statement or oral evidence.

An expert who has only ever worked for claimants will always face questions about their independence. The most credible experts are the ones whose opinion cannot be predicted by who is paying the invoice.

What separates a good expert report from a great one

A court ready expert report is not the same as a well written clinical letter. The differences are specific and they matter at every stage of litigation from disclosure to trial.

A properly structured expert report opens with a clear statement of the expert's qualifications and their understanding of their duty to the court. It sets out every document that has been reviewed. It applies the Bolam and Bolitho tests accurately without either understating or overstating the position. It separates breach of duty from causation clearly. It acknowledges uncertainty where uncertainty genuinely exists because courts are suspicious of experts who claim total confidence about everything. And it is written in language that a judge without medical training can follow without difficulty.

Reports that read like clinical summaries or that are structured as advocacy documents tend to create problems the moment they reach disclosure. The opposing expert finds the gaps quickly and those gaps become the story.

Practical questions solicitors should ask before instructing

Beyond qualifications and experience there are practical questions worth raising before any instruction is confirmed. Will the expert be available for a joint statement if one is required? Can they attend a conference with counsel? What is their realistic turnaround time for a first report? Are they willing to provide a supplementary report if new evidence comes to light?

These are not awkward questions. They are standard case management considerations. An expert who is difficult to reach or consistently late on agreed deadlines creates pressure on the whole file. It is better to establish expectations clearly at the outset.

About Dr Anup Singh

Dr Anup Singh is an NHS GP based in Nottingham and the East Midlands. He holds Bond Solon and Cardiff University certification in expert witness practice and has direct experience as a medical member of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. He accepts instructions for clinical negligence reports from both claimant and defendant solicitors as well as for Coronial proceedings and Fitness to Practise matters.

His GMC registration number is 7135145. A sample report and full CV are available to download directly from his website.

Download a sample report and full CV

07356 265030  |  expertwitness.anupsingh@zohomail.eu

Visit expertwitness-gp.co.uk