Get Involved
Senate Committee Inaction Leaves Problem of Incentivized Expert Witnesses Unchecked
In a disappointing decision to sidestep an ABA conduct rule, Senate Judiciary A voted 3–4 to kill HB 437 by Rep. Michael Melerine (R-Shreveport), leaving Louisiana without safeguards against outcome-based payments to expert witnesses.
LABI thanks Sens. Edmonds, Mizell and Seabaugh for voting in favor of the measure. The bill was opposed by Sens. Carter, Jenkins, Luneau, and Committee Chairman Miller.
HB 437 sought to reinforce a core principle of the justice system: expert witnesses should be neutral, independent sources of specialized knowledge—not financially invested advocates. Because expert testimony often determines whether a case moves forward, the bill aimed to strengthen confidence in the reliability and objectivity of expert evidence presented in court. Most states—in some way, shape or form—ban or strongly discourage paying expert witnesses based on whether a case is won or lost. In plain terms: experts can be paid for their time and work, but their pay cannot depend on the outcome of the case.
The legislation made targeted updates to Louisiana law to ensure expert testimony admitted in civil court is free from outcome-based financial influence. Importantly, the measure applied equally to all parties and did not limit access to qualified experts. Instead, it focused on ensuring financially conflicted or unreliable testimony is addressed before trial, helping protect the integrity of the judicial process.
“The goal of the bill is to ensure that if somebody is being offered as an expert, they’re going to provide testimony that is honest, true and fair; impartial on both sides,” Rep. Melerine told the Committee.
HB 437 would have prohibited outcome-based compensation for expert witnesses while continuing to allow standard payment for their time and professional expertise. The bill narrowly defined “pecuniary interest” to target only outcome-based incentives, preserving normal compensation and employment relationships. It also strengthened judicial gatekeeping by requiring judges to evaluate an expert’s reliability and neutrality before testimony reaches a jury, aligning Louisiana more closely with modern federal evidentiary standards and increasing transparency through disclosure requirements.
Mark Behrens of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute of Legal Reform emphasized that the bill simply codified best practices followed in most states and reflected longstanding ethical standards discouraging contingency-fee arrangements for expert witnesses.
“Either actual or perceived, the fact finder is going to perceive that if somebody is working with a financial interest in the case, that they lack objectivity, they may be less
trustworthy and they’re not independent,” Behrens testified.
Despite these safeguards and its balanced approach, the committee declined to move the legislation forward—leaving Louisiana without clear statutory protections against outcome-based expert testimony.