I claim no such thing. All I know about the cases you've been involved with is what you have chosen to share. You'll know the details of what occurred in your cases better than I. Based on things you've said here I think that your interpretation of at least some of what you saw isn't correct. For example, you've mentioned some things that lawyers have done in the cases that you were involved with and expressed your view that those things were unethical, underhanded, etc., when in my view they were nothing of the kind. Your interpretation of what you saw comes in part from a lack of knowledge of how litigation works and of course the bias you have in your own case. I get that and understand where your views come from. But don't expect me to adopt the same interpretation you do when I have a very different set of experiences in litigation.
He is a qualified expert in medicine. He is not a qualified expert in litigation. His knowledge of litigation is largely based on his experience testifying as a witness. He'll therefore have knowledge about testifying as an expert witness and knowledge about the battle of experts in the courtroom. But he likely has little knowledge and experience with all the rest that goes into litigating a case. That's not his area of expertise. He doesn't spend his time litigating cases.
There could be all kinds of reasons why he thinks that our system is screwed up. Without knowing exactly what he thinks is screwed up I cannot say if he's right or if he's gotten the wrong impression of it. Some experts take exception to the battle of the experts system that is used in civil trials because they take pride in their expert opinion and dislike that the other side puts up an opposing expert who attempts to pick apart their opinion and offers a differing conclusion. So for those sorts of experts at least that part of the system they view as screwed up. That may be what his problem with the system is, but I really have no idea since I've not talked to him about it.

