[Tommy Williamsen]

The scene:  a courtroom in Anywhere, USA
The defense attorney calls an expert witness in golf course architecture to testify.

The prosecutor asks for the witness' qualifications.
The defense attorney says,".....................

[Joe Hancock]

"Your Honor,my client's peers in the industry consider him to be such."

I don't know, really.....

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

I'm curious what the lawyers here provide as the correct answer.

I'd tend to lean toward Mike Young's definition, though I don't want to start a courtroom brawl.

[Jed Peters]

I'm curious what the lawyers here provide as the correct answer.

I'd tend to lean toward Mike Young's definition, though I don't want to start a courtroom brawl.

I'm sure anyone of the lawyers here (including me) could come up with a satisfactory answer (to the layman) but likely it'd just be BS.

[Jed Peters]

Okay, here's the Black's definition:

EXPERT WITNESS - When knowledge of a technical subject matter might be helpful to a trier of fact, a person having special training or experience in that technical field, one who is called an expert witness, is permitted to state his or her opinion concerning those technical matters even though he or she was not present at the event. For example, an arson expert could testify about the probable cause of a suspicious fire.

A person who testifies at a trial because she has special knowledge in a particular field. This entitles her to testify about her opinion on the meaning of facts.

[henrye]

In a courtroom I would think a member of the ASGCA would suffice.

[JESII]

a login to GOLF CLUB ATLAS should suffice...maybe a minimum post requirement of say 4800 or so...

[Kalen Braley]

"Your honor, my client has built cart paths on a couple of golf courses"    

[Jeff_Brauer]

In my 25 years as a gca, I have testified in court five times, once for clients, and four times to defend golf courses or other friends in the industry.  I turn down dozens of requests a year.

I am the perfect expert because I have gca qualifications, some national recognition (as former ASGCA Prez) and because I don't testify for a living, as so many experts do.  In fact, there is a web site where lawyers can go to get experts and there is a section for golf courses. I know one ASGCA member is listed there.

For the most part, experts I have run across can be pretty unqualified, including golf pros, any number of consultants, etc.  The legal standard as an expert is really pretty low.  However, I suspect that lawyers (if these things ever got to court, which they rarely do) pick apart the qualifications of the experts as part of their case, so there is some "market demand" for higher qualification in the field.  

I had one lawyer request my old testimony in other cases, my specs, my plans on old projects, etc.  When deposed, those questions came up as in "Why did you spec this grass in 1989 if you now say its not the best choice?" (Well, it was then, and its not now, and by the way, these are different projects!)

All the more reason to stay away from it.....

[Forrest Richardson]

Like Jeff, I turn down a great number of opportunities to serve as an "expert". I may take one or two ever few years — and it is always reserved for a situation where I can be useful and feel qualified.

In the courtroom and depositions the "expert" status is usually proved by the following:

— Years in the field
— Who you studied with (mentors)
— Education
— Types of projects and responsibilities (quantity, too)
— Errors and Omissions Insurability (are you insured for professional liability?)
— ASGCA
— Publications (books, articles, etc.)
— Seminars and speaking engagements

(These are also the areas that attorneys I work with attack in the opposing "experts")

[Peter Pallotta]

JES -

you should've said anyone who's won the Pennsylvania Mid-Amateur, as it'd cut out more of the riff-raff than your 4800 post requirement (which I could hit in the next month if I tried)....

Tommy -

Good question. The most obvious (and probably right) answer in an American court of law is membership in ASGCA. But then, what would happen if one of their own members was on trial? Or, what if someone sued because a restoration had become a renovation?

In other words, what are the rules of the game in a game that -- as I've read repeatedly here -- has no rules?    

Peter

[Brad Klein]

Half of the practicing golf course architects in the U.S. are not members of the ASGCA. That body is a fraternal, voluntary society of professional colleagues, not a licensing or credentialing organization. I should hope that there are many more standards for expertise than that -- and I say this with no disrespect but for a concern for how ASGCA is perceived.

[Peter Pallotta]

"I should hope that there are many more standards for expertise than that.."

Brad - my point exactly, also with no disrespect intended.

But if there are indeed "many more standards for expertise" in golf course architecture, and I think there are, it makes it rather unique, doesn't it?  

Or at least, it seems to imply that golf course architecture is more of an "art" than it is a "trade" like plumbing or a "profession" like dentistry...

Peter

[Tommy Williamsen]

I was also wondering about superintendents or shapers.  They certainly know the business.  I brought this up more for curiosity because we are a site full of folks who want to be experts.  Most of us know we are not.  Nonetheless, I would venture to say that some 99% of the folks who play golf have no idea what goes into designing and building a course yet feel free to criticize.  I know I don't.
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Brad — "Fraternal and voluntary" seems a bit curt.

So, too, is the ASLA and AIA "voluntary" and perhaps, on some levels, "fraternal." After all, it is not the AIA and ASLA that mandate technical registration — it is the States.

By the way, a few public entities have made ASGCA affiliation mandatory in order to provide services (NOT, by the way, at ASGCA's urging)...so, I think there is a very good possibility that the court system would likewise view ASGCA affiliation above any other organization, at least when it comes to golf design in the U.S.

In a profession where there are so few people involved, ASGCA serves multiple roles — as an organization of professionals, and also as an educational body where GCAs can interact and have dialogue.

The ASGCA does not profess to be a licensing body, but it does require credentials, peer review and submission (proof) of a body of work meeting certain standards. That extends beyond a "fraternal, voluntary society" and, if you were a jurist, you might view an ASGCA member as being "licensed", at least so far as GCA is concerned.

[mike_beene]

There has been a movement in the appellate courts to require the trial judge to be a gatekeeper and make a decision on the experts initial qualifications.It used to be that the judge would allow almost anyone to be put in front of the jury as an expert and then leave it to opposing counsel to tear their credentials down.Now a nonexclusive list under cases like Daubert includes whether scientific experts have been peer reviewed,etc. A lot of this is in response to junk science.

[Brad Klein]

Forrest, there is only one current member of the ASGCA who will allow himself to serve as an expert witness against another ASGCA member. That would seem to bias the available pool of expert witnesses in a case involving an ASGCA member. Others will agree to testify, but only on behalf of an ASGCA member.

[Forrest Richardson]

Brad — I re-read your post above. "Half of golf course architects practicing in the U.S. are not ASGCA members."

I think yo have to look at it closer. It is probably more than half because many people work for principals of a firm and, while they are still "golf course architects", they may not have the credentials to yet become ASGCA members. So, yes, of the total people who call themselves GCAs there are less than half who are not members of the ASGCA.

However, the percentage of total, full-time golf course architects (principal designers) who are ASGCA members (in the U.S.) is probably closer to 75% — maybe more. There are very few (compared to the 180+ ASGCA members) full-time, principal designers who are not ASGCA members. I would be surprised if you came up with 30-40 — unless you started listing the Gary Players, Davis Loves, etc., or begin adding land planners who dabble in GCA or some of the foreign designers who practice here, but do not live here (North America).

[Brad Klein]

how about those who head their own shop or have tons of experience in the field who are not members -- many of whom are doing fascinating work and have lots of technical expertise:

Ben Crenshaw, Tom Weiskopf, Tom Doak, Mike Young, Davis Love III & Jim Spence, Ron Forse, Ron Prichard, Mike DeVries, Randy Heckenkemper, David McClay Kidd, Kris Spence, David Esler, Andy Banfield, Mike Strantz, Jason McCoy, Eric Bergstol, Tim Cate, Gene Bates, Ron Farris, Kelly Moran

Maybe not 1/2, but a considerable number.

[Forrest Richardson]

Brad — ASGCA does not have any prohibition about a member testifying against another member. We have an expert witness guideline document (like most professional organizations), but that document does not stray into any such territory as you mention. Beyond friendships (keep in mind that there are only 180 members alive at present), there is nothing (except mathematics) to prevent a member from being an expert against another member.

I can report to you that nearly all of the cases that I am contacted about do NOT involve an ASGCA member. In fact, I can only recall two and they were nothing about the design when you really studied the problem. Most lawsuits are about poorly orchestrated golf designs by ill-suited professionals (classic example: Civil engineer plats a subdivision and course...instant golf course!) or cases involving golf carts, lakes, errant balls or construction errors.

As noted, this is a lot about mathematics: In a pool of only 180 members (ASGCA), only a few will testify at all. I think there are only a dozen of us who have done it with any degree of regularity. Typically cases are weak on one side and my experience tells me that the weaker side ALWAYS has a difficult time getting ANYONE to represent their position, let alone one of the few ASGCA members who would even agree to do it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest, there is only one current member of the ASGCA who will allow himself to serve as an expert witness against another ASGCA member. That would seem to bias the available pool of expert witnesses in a case involving an ASGCA member. Others will agree to testify, but only on behalf of an ASGCA member.

Oh, I think there have been more than one. I can think of three right off the top of my head who have testified against other ASGCA members, although I know of only one who does it on a fairly regular basis.

And, in any testimony, ASGCA adopted a guideline for experts, modeled after the AIA version. In short, while there is no prohibition against testifying against another professional, the expert needs to be fully acquainted with the facts in rendering any opinion, which seems fair enough.

Sadly, in two cases I am familiar with, an ASGCA member wrote a one page "report" which sounded like a lawyer wrote it and he signed it. In another, even after delaying a depostion, the ASGCA member had not studied any of the documents, but kept referring to the issues in very general ways rather than fact.  The defense attorney finally summed up his day of testimony as wasting everyone's time.

Given who the second gca was, I was surpised to know that he thought the $4000 he got for the day was worth it, but then again, who am I to judge, and I did learn I wasn't charging enough for such work esp. since I am one who will only bother if I am defending truth, justice and the non-letigious portions of the American way......  

[Jim Nugent]

There has been a movement in the appellate courts to require the trial judge to be a gatekeeper and make a decision on the experts initial qualifications.It used to be that the judge would allow almost anyone to be put in front of the jury as an expert and then leave it to opposing counsel to tear their credentials down.Now a nonexclusive list under cases like Daubert includes whether scientific experts have been peer reviewed,etc. A lot of this is in response to junk science.

The old way sounds way better to me.  Let the juries decide who is an expert, not the judges.  

[TEPaul]

To be an expert witness on golf course architecture you have to be a member of the ASGCA?

Wow, how about that? I didn't know that!

[Jeff_Brauer]

To be an expert witness on golf course architecture you have to be a member of the ASGCA?

Wow, how about that? I didn't know that!

TEPaul,

That is certainly not how I read this thread.  Quite the opposite, actually.  However, Forrest's comments about it are true - whatever a few here think regarding how ASGCA members may have changed certain classic courses, in a court of law, having those letters behind your name would be accepted as an expert.  On the other hand, I have seen college professors, appraisers and others with "credentials" brought forward as well.

[Mike_Young]

Gosh, I can't believe an ASGCA thread was goin on and I was missing it....
I got suckered into "expert " testimony once.....never again...it's for goobers.....(JB, FR, MH excluded)

Forrest,
I would like to know the names of the public entities that require ASGCA qualifications..I don't think they can do that...since ASGCA is not a licensing body.
And , with respect, ASLA and AIA are not set up like ASGCA.  
Lets quit bickering about what percentage of golf architects are members......my question would be what percentage of courses being designed or built this year are by ASGCA members.....
And finally,  how many ASGCA members have never built a course with their name on it?
Happy New Year,
Mike


 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()