Court-Appointed or Jointly Retained Financial Experts

Are there differences in the level of service and conclusions if a financial expert is privately retained, jointly retained or appointed by a court? Ideally, the manner in which the expert is retained should have no bearing on the work performed or opinions reached because, regardless of who retains the expert, the work should be performed independently and with objectivity. That, however, is not always the case, and there can be significant procedural and work flow issues, depending on how the expert is retained. Throughout this article, the New Jersey Court Rules are cited by way of example.

The major differences between the privately retained expert and the joint expert or court-appointed expert are as follows:

• The privately retained expert can assist the parties and their attorneys by providing tax and accounting advice and assistance at negotiations.

The neutral expert can assist the court, attorneys and parties to:

• Shorten discovery;
• Make the case less contentious;
• Control costs; and
• Facilitate settlement.

In a number of states, the current trend is often to use jointly retained or court-appointed financial experts because of the belief that this method will save time and money, alleviate stress, and increase the odds of a mutually successful outcome. This article is intended to explain the ways in which experts serving in a joint capacity in matrimonial matters are retained and the services they can provide.