Answer the following questions related to the Dock’s Creek Land Company case presented in the chapter:

1. How does Robertson’s role differ from Wiseman’s?

2. Are the professional standards applied differently to Robertson and Wiseman?

3. What professional responsibility guidance applies to Robertson?

4. Was Robertson independent in the performance of the engagement?

5. Did Robertson maintain his objectivity and integrity in the performance of the engagement?

6. Did Robertson misrepresent facts?

7. Can Robertson, as an expert, rely on other experts to develop his opinion?

8. Can Robertson rely on Wiseman as an expert in this case?

9. Did Robertson subordinate his judgment to Wiseman?

10. Did Robertson exercise due professional care in the performance of the engagement?

11. Did Robertson obtain sufficient relevant data to afford a reasonable basis for his opinion?

12. Did Robertson place service to the client above service to the court? To the profession? To the public?

13. Was Robertson being intellectually honest?

14. What specific duty does Robertson have to the court?

15. Explain the court’s statement that “Like all evidence, expert testimony must be relevant to be admissible.”

16. Explain the court’s statement that “Hypothesis is not proof, nor is speculation.”

17. Did Robertson exercise professional skepticism in the course of the engagement?

18. How might qualitative issues (such as pending claims against Wiseman by his partners in Dock’s Creek) impact Robertson’s reliance on Wiseman?

19. Finally, where did Robertson go wrong?