v. Byrne-Stevens, 26 Willamette L.Rev. 1051 (1990). However, at least one law review article argues that “[i]t should not be unreasonable, however, for a litigant to expect an adverse expert witness to observe the same standard of care applicable outside the context of litigation services.” W. Raley Alford, III, Comment, The Biased Expert Witness in Louisiana Tort Law: Existing Mechanisms of Control and Proposals for Change, 61 La. L.Rev. 18 (2000). The rulings of other jurisdictions holding that expert witnesses may be held liable in some circumstances for their negligent preparation of evidence or opinions offered in court and various scholarly works on the subject of witness immunity demonstrate a good faith argument for extension of t .App.4th 392, 6 Cal. Rptr.2d 781 (Ct.App. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Murphy v. A.A. Mathews, a Div. of CRS Group
holding professional malpractice claim not contractual holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims holding that as a general matter membership or shareholder status in a professional corporation does not shield an attorney from individual liability for his own mistakes or professional misdeeds holding that witness immunity would not shield an expert witnessaccounting firm from otherwise actionable professional malpractice