In this blog, Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Barrister Haroon Rashid examines best practice for drafting joint statements. Discover the common pitfalls to avoid and learn how the language used in joint statements can affect how evidence is perceived.

Joint statements between experts are intended to narrow issues objectively, assist the court, and reflect genuine professional consensus. In practice, however, there is a recurring concern in litigation that the drafting process can subtly influence tone and emphasis, particularly where one expert prepares the first draft.

A common issue arises where the defendant’s expert produces the draft joint report using language that, whilst technically incorporating the claimant expert’s substantive opinions, frames matters in a way that is more favourable to the defence. This may be achieved through careful wording, selective emphasis, cautious phrasing, or the presentation of disputed issues in a manner that downplays the claimant’s case. The claimant’s expert, often working under time pressure and focusing primarily on whether their broad conclusions are included, may approve and sign the statement without fully scrutinising the forensic implications of the language used.

This practice can materially affect how the evidence is perceived by Solicitors, Counsel, insurers, and ultimately the court. Even where the core medical opinion remains unchanged, subtle drafting can influence perceived strength, certainty, causation, prognosis, or functional impact. The resulting statement may therefore appear more supportive of the defendant’s position than the claimant’s expert intended.

Claimant representatives should ensure their experts are specifically warned about this risk. Experts should be advised that:

1. A joint statement is not a mere administrative exercise, but an important evidential document.

2. Every word, tone, and qualification matters.

3. They should lead the way and draft the document. 

4. They should review draft statements critically, not simply confirm that their general views are present.

5. They should insist upon amendments where wording creates imbalance, understatement, or unintended forensic advantage.

6. Where appropriate, they should propose their own wording to ensure neutrality and accuracy.

Experts must remember that their overriding duty is to the court, not to convenience or expediency. Signing a report that subtly misrepresents emphasis or tone can unintentionally prejudice the instructing party’s case.

Ultimately, vigilance at the joint statement stage is essential. Claimant experts must be alive not only to the substance of their opinions, but also to how those opinions are expressed. Careful scrutiny of language can prevent strategic drafting from distorting genuinely independent expert evidence.

Haroon Rashid is an experienced Barrister, predominantly specialising in high-value complex Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence work, acting for both claimants and defendants in all types of cases across the country. If you have a Personal Injury or Clinical Negligence case you need advice or advocacy for, call our Civil Clerks, Michael Jones or Alessandro Saporita-Clark on 0161 832 4036, email Mike@kenworthys.co.uk or Alessandro@kenworthys.co.uk, or fill out our contact form.