Ethics

In Adam Liptak's New York Times article on the American legal system's distinctive approach to expert testimony, the most intriguing idea was the Australian practice of "hot tubbing":

In that procedure, also called concurrent evidence, experts are still chosen by the parties, but they testify together at trial ? discussing the case, asking each other questions, responding to inquiries from the judge and the lawyers, finding common ground and sharpening the open issues. . . .

Australian judges have embraced hot tubbing. ?You can feel the release of the tension which normally infects the evidence-gathering process,? Justice Peter McClellan of the Land and Environmental Court of New South Wales said in a speech on the practice. ?Not confined to answering the question of the advocates,? he added, experts ?are able to more effectively respond to the views of the other expert or experts.?

I like the idea, but I wonder whether American lawyers could ever release their grip on litigation proceedings enough to allow any sort of authentic, non-staged, helpful exchange to occur between the experts.  Hot tubs are distinctly less relaxing when a team of micro-managing attorneys is perched on the side of the tub, making sure that everyone sticks to the script.  In other words, for the Australian approach to meet its objectives, would it require a more fundamental shift in our litigation culture?  Or would requiring concurrent expert testimony be enough to change the partisan dynamic by keeping the attorneys, at least temporarily, out of the pool?