David P. Callet, Esq. and Akin Gump's Ironic Use of Expert Testimony

David P. Callet, Esq. is a trial attorney specializing in large product liability, toxic tort, medical device, patent and intellectual property litigation. He currently practices at Greenberg Traurig, LLP.  He has extensive experience with complex civil cases, both state and federal, and in proceedings before administrative agencies. He has also litigated precedent-setting labor cases involving the Railway Labor Act, and has broad experience in appellate courts.

David Callet is an acknowledged leader and lecturer on the use of technology in the practice of law and an authority on Daubert challenges to expert testimony.

While I worked at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (June 1988 to October 1991) David Callet was a senior attorney of the major client to which I was assigned as a paralegal: Eastern Airlines.  In fact during the period May to June 1988 I worked in an office adjacent to his.  Both David P. Callet and Dennis M. Race were employed in Akin Gump's Litigation practice group under R. Bruce McLean.

On October 29, 1991 my employment at Akin Gump was terminated by Dennis Race.  The firm alleged that it had determined, in an ex parte consultation with a practicing psychiatrist (who had never met me), that a harassment complaint I had lodged against my coworkers was the product of a psychiatric "disorder" that might dispose me to become violent.

Mr. Callet, I have a question about a Daubert challenge.  What does the Daubert Standard say about the relevance and reliability of Cartoon Physics as it applies to an employee who has accrued an outstanding employment record over the previous 3 1/2 years but has been determined to have been retroactively psychotic and unemployable from a time period even before he was hired by virtue of an ex parte psychiatric opinion offered in violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater rule?   Is it true that according to the laws of cartoon physics (which is funnier than real world experience and therefore applicable**), such an expert opinion is relevant and reliable in concluding that the seemingly outstanding employee in question was in fact psychotic and unfit for employment even before he was hired?
____________

**Under the well-known Standard of Cartoon Physics the laws of the District of Columbia and the United States are applicable in the District of Columbia unless it is funnier otherwise.