COMPARING THE CONSULTANTS

In recent months, several people who have contacted me about their regret with their decision to use a different consultant on their cases after first talking to me. They suggested that I make it more clear the differences in services between myself and the others who work in this field.

I was the first consultant specializing in false allegations but today there are a few other people out there claiming to do what I have been doing for almost 30 years, and there are several fancy websites that lure people who are in need of help. Let me make some comparisons for you to aid you in clearing up some confusion and in making a decision about who to have help you.

Of my competitors, only one has an actual graduate degree, his degree is a Master's in Social Work. Most of his materials are excellent and his knowledge level superior to the others who try to call themselves consultants. He is licensed to do what he does. If you had the time to research his writings and my own from 20 years ago you would see that a good deal of his philosophy on how to deal with cases was first devised and published by me. In many respects, he uses strategies that I abandoned years ago because more reliable and less expensive techniques were available. By better I mean also more effective. He specifically urges people against the scientific testing we use, and against using psychologists or psychiatrists. I think his opposition to some of the testing is largely because he is not qualified to do it himself. However, you could do far worse; at least you will get what you pay for and integrity.

Another competitor has an extremely impressive website and it is cluttered with all sorts of grandiose claims and "products" for sale, some of his claims are outright false, and many others deliberately misleading. He claims to have consulted on high profile cases of celebrities it is a misrepresentation used to impress the gullible. He also claims to do the same things I do for a fraction of my fees. He cannot do what I do because he does not have the proper credentials to do so. He also claims to be able to do the same things as private investigators, and sometimes even lawyers. He also claims to have a "perfect track record." He does not! You can pick from his books (none of which he actually wrote himself) and which are all essentially the same book. His website is also littered with self-promotion materials. It is important to note that this individual is not a member of any professional organization nor is he licensed to do what he claims to do. He has no ethical standard to which he subscribes and there is no professional oversight on his work. That is important to you as some of his former clients could testify to you. One important reason for you to consider is that nothing you tell him has any legal protection of confidentiality since he is not a member of any legally recognized profession. Tossing about the term "work product privilege" is not a guarantee to you of confidentiality. (See September 2003 U.S. Court of appeals decision) The work product privilege belongs only to attorneys and those of recognized professions, such as investigators, psychologists or trial consultants. There is no such thing as a "litigation consultant" or a "Forensic consultant." It is a term that he has applied to himself. Clients have learned to their dismay that confidences have been violated and trust betrayed. No matter the cheap price and use of impressive terminology, you will be on your own. The individual often uses professional sounding buzz words (often incorrectly) to make people believe he really knows what he is talking about and hide that he does not. Has he succeeded in cases, yes, quite a few in fact. Why has he succeeded? Because he has followed a case design that I developed 20 years ago. It still works sometimes. I have improved on that design over the years because science has changed, new discoveries have been made, and the prosecution has changed its way of handling cases. The question is whether he can succeed on your case, because he has not succeeded on many other cases. This individual claims that he is the only consultant with a "perfect track record." That is far from the truth. This is a pattern with this individual. He misrepresents his relationship to "high profile cases," he misrepresents his education (he does not have a bachelor's degree in psychology as he tries to suggest.) He also misrepresents when asked his criminal history. He falsely claims to have been acquitted in cases where he took pleas. He certainly conceals his employment history for good reason. He does not tell you that his newer books are essentially clones of his first book with a few added things and that he actually did not write the first book but contracted a ghostwriter. The degree program he claims to be enrolled in is not actually in psychology as such. In addition, he has on occasion misrepresented himself as already having a Doctoral degree to the media. Not on his website, but occasionally to unwary reporters and prospective clients.

Let me digress and discuss fees here for a second. A "forensic consultant" such as this person will generally quote you a low fee, but what do you get for your money? You get some "strategy" suggestions, referrals to some experts and commiseration on the phone. He will quote a fee generally about 25% of mine. I can and will do the same for less than what he quotes. However, . . . . do you really want that? No! There are many reasons why you should not. Do you think that a Yugo is really as good as a Jaguar? They both have engines, seats and wheels, from there the comparison ends. If you are facing a false allegation and you might need testing (not everyone should take it) if you need it, you need it because you face serious legal consequences and it can help you, do you want "almost?" Usually your freedom and/or your children are at risk in these cases. With as many as 30% of clients who will either fail some or all of the tests, or results are other than perfect, when you are merely sent for testing and not ptoperly preped, it is a significant risk you should not wish to take with your life and the future of your children depending on the clarity of the results. That is only the first of many problems with "send em to the doc" type of consulting. Even if you have great test results (let us assume the best) what do you do with them? Is your lawyer also a psychologist who can properly explain them to the powers that be? Can your lawyer adequately answer legal questions about the science? Who will explain the results then? The doctor you want to have testify later? That is not a good idea because it makes the doctor appear to be an advocate for you than being an objective evaluator. Did the consultant tell you how often the expensive testing and testimony was not admitted into evidence in his cases because the local lawyer did not understand the science and could not answer questions? Can he go to make presentations on the testing? No! Is he clinically qualified to administer any of the testing? No! Yes, you can save a few dollars but take a hard look at the risks you are taking.

If somebody told you that they could give you an automobile that was just as good as or better than a $50,000 Jaguar for a fraction of the price, would you believe it? Is aYugo as good as even a Ford Focus? When another consultant says that he does the "same things as Pangborn, but I do it for only 25% of what he charges" you should understand that in reality what you are getting is 75% less or perhaps even much less.

I am not suggesting that you are going to your certain doom if you use somebody else. What you are doing is playing a numbers game. Your choice is a full "Team" or the lone ranger. Your choice is somebody who will abandon you when things get tough or somebody who has a true professional commitment to your case.

There is a private investigator who has no degree but who saw me work in a single case and now believes he is capable of doing the same things he heard I did. Is he? No! However, at least he is licensed as a Private Investigator and he has some professional oversight. While he is a great investigator, he seems not to want to do investigations today but to be a "consultant" because apparently it seems easier or more rewarding. However, buried in the fine print of documents clients must sign with his expert there are some serious problems. One is that his "expert" who is widely known, is known as having a bias toward the prosecution side and not favorable to the accused. In addition the testing used is too limited. But the real problem is in the releases you are asked to sign, they allow that expert to reveal your test results to prosecutors and opposing lawyers. In reality often the opposition has received the test results before the lawyers for the accused person has, and this creates problems you cannot begin to imagine. Key parts of the testing are never explained to the client, parts that can cause misleading problems for the client that make innocent people appear guilty. At least the investigator has integrity and actual field experience. (He has actually seen trials.)

In another case, the "consultant" is a single mom whose former husband was convicted of sexual misconduct. Again no degree or professional credentials although she is a knowledgeable woman and a very nice one personally. She has a tremendous amount of information that is helpful. Most of her advice is free and at least as good as the low priced consultant. Her education is at least as good as some others as it relates to giving advice to desperate people. You could do far worse. She is not known to lie to clients just to get their money.

Am I "knocking the competition?" I suppose the at least one of the "consultants" will feel that I am. I am trying to give you a basis for comparison and answer some of the things that clients have been confronted with. It seems that one of these competing "consultants" sees it as necessary to refer people to a libelous website that attacks me with fabricated materials. He complains that I am knocking him. I suppose to him the truth seems like knocking the competition. Sadly, a law passed by congress in 1997 protects libelous false web sites from libel laws no matter how false their claims are. Knocking the competition is using that kind of tool to cloud his own deficiencies, when he knows that the claims on that web site are false, testifies a great deal about the person doing it. I present these things for you to consider. If you are presented with any fact claims about me, please ask me about them. Here is an important checklist to help you decide whom to use.

CHECKLIST

(Please ask the questions and then grade the answers that you receive for yourself.)

There are a number of good people on the net. Lawyers who have strong specialties in this area, investigators who have strong records of accomplishment who understand these cases. The good people do not sell their services by making misleading claims or selling them as cheaper. I will repeat an old saying worth your consideration:

"If you want nice, fresh, clean oats, you must pay a good price for them. If you don't mind if they have been through the horse once, then they come much cheaper."

John Ruskin 18th Century English Philosopher

There are very fine people out there that I can recommend. Attorneys Pat Clancy, Charlie Jamieson, Alan Eisenberg for example. Private investigators Larry Daly, and Harvey Shapiro. Kim Hart and Lesley Wimbery are also good sources for information.

HOME | THE A-TEAM | LINKS | JURY SELECTION | EXPERT SELECTION | FEE SCHEDULE | SAMPLE CONTRACT