PI Brief Update

Superlawyer: Working with The Greats - Dr Mark Burgin

23/02/26. Dr Mark Burgin explains how the best lawyers can empower experts to write better reports that address all the material issues.

A common source of friction exists between the instructing solicitor and the medical expert regarding the nature of instructions. The expert may argue they are simply providing a medical report, while the solicitor insists the expert address broader legal or procedural issues. Without clear boundaries, the exchange can degenerate into lawyers offering medical opinions and experts attempting to explain the law.

This article describes my experience of working with superlawyers, the apparently ordinary professionals whose clarity of mind and communication skills can help me avoid errors and make it easier to amend the report. These heroes are often unrecognised because they master the fundamentals and navigate complex systems.

I have learned that the best in any area are those who do the simple things correctly. Their experience of navigating systems means that they rarely need to degenerate into making threats and unpleasantry. They do not use a chat with the expert to try to cross examine the expert and find alternatives when the hit a barrier. 

The Power of the Instruction Letter

Even a simple PI instruction letter should include a phrase such as ‘We instruct you to write a CPR35 compliant report about the injuries sustained in a fall on [Date]. This allows the expert to copy and paste that phrase as the ‘substance of material instructions’. In more complicated cases it can be expanded with special questions, background information and even a case summary.

Special questions are the best way of asking an expert to address specific issues. They may help the expert to realise that they do not have expertise in the issues for this report. The expert may be able to write a medical report but not address the special questions. The expert will often refuse to answer these questions if posed after the report has been completed.

Background is mandatory for more complex cases such as clinical negligence. The expert needs to understand the case to properly address the issues. This can help a specialist indicate a more suitable field of expertise. If the special questions have missed a material issue the expert can alert the solicitor to the medicine that underlies that issue. Case summary is a useful section as it orientates the expert in the law and ensures that the expert can look up the legal requirements.

Disability.

Many people have pre-existing conditions and often these conditions cause functional restrictions. Physical, psychological and hidden restrictions can impact both on the litigant’s ability to engage with the process and attribution to any losses. Even in apparently simple PI cases there are a few people who require a full disability assessment to tease apart the various issues.

The loss consequential section of a report is a simple disability assessment and medical experts can struggle to write it effectively. Superlawyers provide the expert with a statement of truth so that the expert can correct their work. In complex cases the superlawyers instruct disability analysts who can make a full disability assessment and explain their reasoning.

Superlawyers often ask a disability analyst to do condition and prognosis reports rather than specialists. The reasoning is that injuries are often more complex than one specialist area. The GP records will have information that specialists will struggle to understand as they are written in a sort of code. Teasing apart attribution requires the expert to understand the effects of multiple processes.

Correcting errors.

Superlawyers ask for clarification rather than instructing the expert to make changes to their opinions. They realise that understanding the medicine may help them detect errors in the logic for either side. Clarification can reveal areas of doubt or approaches that they would not otherwise be aware of. Experts are less guarded and irritable if they are asked to explain their thinking.

Snagging lists of factual errors should be visually simple so that the expert can easily see what is required. If there are other problems then it is worth separating them in the request for amendments so that the expert can start work on the snagging list first. This makes the expert more likely to try to solve the other problems rather than writing back.

Range of opinion is often omitted and superlawyers can remind the expert that it is mandatory. This ensure that they both comply with the procedure rules and neutralise the effect of the other’s side’s expert. I have a reported case where the judge agreed with my range of opinion. By avoiding trying to get the expert to change their opinion the case can proceed and the expert can remain unbiased.

Further evidence.

A good expert will identify the limits of evidence and whether that evidence is likely to change their opinions. I often write ‘the presumption against medical records review is rebutted’ or similar. Many experts will not comment that there is missing evidence and superlawyers know to ask a friend if they have missed something. Often the last piece of evidence provided changes the balance of probabilities.

Some experts will dig in their heels and worse others will admit that it sounds likely that further evidence would support the opposite opinion. The independent and unbiased expert will point out that whilst is possible that the missing document would change their opinion it is not probable. If the document is unavailable the expert should offer a range of opinion.

The superlawyer instructs the expert that they have attempted to obtain all the evidence. Even when the chance of obtaining records from another country, private healthcare or protocols is low the superlawyer’s efforts to locate these mean that the expert can provide a range of opinion. Electronically held records can be obtained in 10 days and most data controllers will be happy to expedite the records for a fee.

Conclusions.

Working with superlawyers is often the most challenging aspect of my work as they stress test my logic. I value the input because it genuinely leads to better reports than I would have been able to write without their help. Their scrutiny gives me the feedback to be more rigorous and understand the issues.

The procedure rules provide clear guidance in most superlawyer areas apart from the issue of disability awareness. It is this area that the courts should provide further guidance to both experts and lawyers. Simple steps are having a comfortable chair in the body of the court to prevent pressure sores, a single A4 sheet of paper summarising the case for those with neurodifference and assessing people for disability.

Disability analysts and GPs have significant experience in managing the behavioural issues associated with neurodifference. They often have simple techniques that can be used to progress a difficult case and reduce conflict with the litigant. Superlawyers have the humility and courage to ask for assistance.

Doctor Mark Burgin, BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP is a Disability Analyst and is on the General Practitioner Specialist Register.

Dr. Burgin can be contacted on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and 01226 761937 websites drmarkburgin.co.uk and gecko-alligator-babx.squarespace.com

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Everyday better to do everything you love

This is part of a series of articles by Dr. Mark Burgin. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand.