Are the Experts expert?

The Times reports on City University research which shows that 3 out of 4 lawyers fail to check the qualifications of their experts. The research authors call for a change in the rules to ensure that training and qualifications are taken into account before experts are selected. Of course, this is supposed already to be considered under the Protocol. However, I cannot remember the last time a Judge actually asked to see the expert's cv if all the parties were agreed that a particular individual was to be instructed. It may seem that there is some protection afforded in choosing an expert who is accredited, for example by the Law Society. But there is much more to it than that. It is important to consider questions such as how far away from clinical practice the expert is and what training they may have had in giving evidence in general and in family cases, in particular. I am also aware that a number of experts are assumed to have an expertise in a certain area simply because they regularly appear in the family courts eg a certain Psychiatrist who is assumed to be a Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist when in fact she is a Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy or a certain Paediatrician who describes himself as a Forensic Paediatrician when there is no such qualification which is formally recognised, a certain Psychologist who is regularly asked to assess learning disabled parents when her clinical expertise is in the field of the elderly etc etc. And what pray is a Paediatric Neuroradiologist or a Consultant in Paediatric Bone Disease? Two resources which may help are the recent article by Chris McWatters on expert directory websites on Family Law Week and this Guidance on Type of Expert & Qualification on the 4 Brick Court website (where you will also find a an updated draft letter of instruction to experts . Your top tips for how to avoid pitfalls in instructing experts would be welcomed.