Abstract
In the English civil justice system, experts involved in a case are now commonly required to confer before the hearing and identify the areas of agreement and disagreement. A prospective study of 50 consecutive medicolegal conferences of experts was undertaken, with a view to defining their benefits, weaknesses and the optimum conference format. A record was kept of the dates of first instruction, court deadlines, and date, time and duration of conferences, together with related calls and correspondence. The manner of preparation of the statement was noted, the level of agreement/disagreement, any compromise, any later modifications of the draft, and the author's fees. Subsequently the instructing solicitors were asked to comment on the suitability of the joint statement and its contribution to settlement. Medicolegal conferencing is time-consuming and expensive. It may be of limited value where there is little or no difference of opinion, either between experts in a single field or between experts in different fields. The instructing solicitors must ensure that the participants receive, in advance of the conference, copies of all relevant documents including medical reports and medical records. An agenda is helpful in ensuring that matters of importance are not overlooked. Conferences are more effective when held in person than when conducted by telephone. The joint statement is best dictated in the presence of all participants during or after the conference. To ensure the most efficient and economical use of consultant time a formal combined audit of conferencing should be undertaken by the medical and legal professions.