Malott & Peterson Roofing Co at 801 Virginia Street, Berkeley, California.

Malott & Peterson Roofing does not actually do roof installation or repair work. Instead, the principal, Charles Peterson, exclusively serves as an expert witness for legal cases that involve alleged roof defects. Mr. Peterson is an experienced and knowledgeable roofer, but his work as an expert witness is unethical. When I filed a lawsuit against a fellow who built and then sold me a house that suffered from significant construction defects, I hired Mr. Peterson to serve as my roofing expert. At first I thought he was great. I paid him a great deal of money at $200 an hour to perform multiple inspections and then produce a repair report. Prior to the trial, my attorney withdrew from the case through no fault of mine and I was without an attorney for a time. During this period, when I met with Mr. Peterson to discuss how we would proceed, he threatened to quit unless I paid him a large retainer in advance to continue. Our contract, however, did not call for a retainer. If he quit, I would be forced to hire a new roofing expert who would have to do the inspections over again and produce a new report at great cost. Threatening to quit unless I paid him a large retainer was an act of extortion. I discovered through this process that people who work as expert witnesses prefer to work with attorneys, especially attorneys who work for large law firms, because doing so gives them opportunities for future work with those firms. Unless expert witnesses are ethical and actually care about their clients, they have little incentive to work with clients who are not represented by legal counsel. Even though I didn't want to work with someone who treated me as he did, I had no choice but to pay his retainer.

Fortunately, on the eve of trial the lawsuit was settled out of court, and I did not have to rely on Mr. Peterson's testimony. Now, however, he has refused to return my retainer unless I agree to pay him two final charges that are not legitimate. One is for administrative work that one of his assistants did to organize a database days after Mr. Peterson was specifically told to cease all activity on the case. The other was for time that he supposedly spent on a phone call with my attorney and in responding to an email from my attorney that both merely asked him to put the trial date on his calendar. Paying for work that he was specifically told not to do and for the simple task of putting the trial on his calendar, which is not a billable activity per our contract--certainly not at a rate of $200 per hour--is a final insult from a unethical businessman.

Expert witnesses work with clients who are usually stressed and overburdened with legal expenses. They are integral to the legal process and should be governed by standards that are similar to those that govern the behavior of attorneys. Unfortunately, no governing body oversees their work. My experience with Mr. Peterson has made it clear that this should change.