Here's an interesting tidbit from a recent $1 million legal malpractice verdict against DLA Piper. The plaintiff's ethics expert (Professor John Strait of Seattle University School of Law) had taught professional responsibility to the lawyer who was accused of malpractice. Like many PR profs, I worry that I will read about the disciplinary problems of former students, but this is certainly an interesting (not troubling, just interesting) twist on that concern.
Another amusing and more conceptually interesting issue in the case is that a different professor at Seattle, David Boerner, offered an opinion that differed from Professor Strait's. At first blush, one might have some concerns about two law professors who work together at the same law school giving testimony on opposite sides of the same case. But this type of issue arises regularly in the context of law school clinics, and authorities generally agree that two clinics in the same law school can be on opposite sides of the same case as long as they operate independently from each other (see pages 528-30). I see no reason why the answer should be different for professors serving as experts as long as the professors operate independently, do not share files, do not discuss the case with each other, and otherwise comply with ABA Op. 97-407.
In any event, neither issue (being an expert against a former student or being an expert in a case where another professor from the same school is the opposing expert) strikes me as problematic, but the fact that both issues arose in the same case was notable.