 |
 |
|
|
IN the highly specialised world of food technology and food process engineering it's quite surprising that companies do not require that their lawyers be either food technologists or engineers too. It's well known that lay people often don't understand the ins and outs of the legal system, much less the legalese bandied about by lawyers when providing advice to their clients. Lawyers, on the other hand, often find it difficult to explain the legal process and legal position in easy-to-understand English which would permit their clients to make a truly informed position.
This situation becomes even more turbid when scientists and engineers begin to spew technical specifications of products and processes, often in acronym form (BOD, COD, PRPs etc), and a dispute arises as to whether or not a specification has been met. In these cases, the lawyers, usually having no or little exposure to science and technology, are at a loss as to what the dispute is actually about and it's quite possible that they may then churn out pages of legal advice which none of the scientists and engineers actually understand, and which may address only the legal issues and not the technological issues.
Then comes the issue of ego. Neither lawyer, nor scientist or engineer wishes to look foolish, so none declare their lack of understanding of what the other is saying or what the issues are.
Thus, a matter can proceed to court on the basis of a technical specification the lawyers don't understand, and/or a legal position which only the lawyers understand. After months or even years of litigation a decision may be reached by a judge that, while accurately reflecting the legal position, may completely ignore the science and engineering realities.
In this context it's important to note that the laws of man are subject to interpretation and re-interpretation with different conclusions being reached by different lawyers, while the laws of nature are absolute and do not change (even if new laws are discovered which refine existing laws). However, the laws of nature need to be explained and understood for proper interpretation by a judge, and this is where complex technical matters can often get bogged down in the courts causing huge delays and expenses to the litigants.
In my experience as an engineer prior to becoming a lawyer, it quite often happened on engineering projects that certain technical specifications couldn't be met for a raft of reasons, including raw material variability, atmospheric conditions and human factors. It is at times like these where the lawyer who is also an engineer or technologist may be of great value in mediating a tricky situation to resolution without the need to head to costly and time-consuming court.
Several years ago I was involved in a case in which numerous experts where called by each party to testify on a highly technical matter. I was alone on the legal team of lawyers, advocates and judge in understanding these experts who spoke reams of technobabble on a simple topic. To make matters worse, each expert tried to show that he was more expert than the previous expert, resulting in a trial which ran for 18 weeks over five years and was eventually delayed for a further three years while the judge considered his verdict (presumably wrestling with the inscrutable technical evidence!). During that trial, I was startled when a lowly court official with a few years of technical workshop experience summed up the case and its likely outcome in a sentence, while a dozen learned men debated the topic for five years!
This scenario also extends to the drafting of contracts relating to technical matters, as well as the resolution of product liability claims where a sound understanding of the underlying technology issues can resolve matters speedily and economically or avoid problems altogether.
Thus, I ask you again, shouldn't your lawyer also be an engineer or food technologist?