United States: The Experts And Evidence In Case Of Mistaken Artistic Identity

Originally published by Law360

Daniel A. Schnapp authored the Law360 article, "The Experts And Evidence In Case Of Mistaken Artistic Identity." 

One of the most remarkable trials over a disputed artwork ended recently when an Illinois federal judge ruled that the well-known Scottish painter Peter Doig "absolutely did not" paint a work of art that was claimed to be by his own hand.

The high-profile trial stemmed from allegations made by a former corrections officer at a Canadian detention facility that Doig had painted the work when Doig was allegedly incarcerated. The trial went forward despite claims by the defense that Doig was not incarcerated and, in fact, was either in Toronto, or working on oil rigs in western Canada, or traveling outside the country, at the time that the work in question was alleged to have been created.

In June, the New York Times asked Ontario authorities to search their records for any evidence of Doig's incarceration. The Ontario authorities were able to obtain records going back only as far as 1985 and apparently informed the Times that it would take more than six weeks to perform a more conclusive search. Ultimately, no documents surfaced that placed Doig in the detention facility.

And so, despite the absence of any actual, conclusive, documentary evidence proffered by the plaintiffs that Doig was, in fact, incarcerated during the relevant period of time, the court ruled that the trial should go forward because there were disputes that could be resolved only following evidentiary submissions and live testimony.

And thus began one of the most captivating trials in the annals of American art litigation. Notably the trial itself marked one of the first instances that a living artist was sued and compelled to take the stand to claim that a work was not by his own hand. Not unexpectedly, this did not sit well with Doig, who stated that "the case is a scam" and that he was "being forced to jump through hoops to prove [his] whereabouts over 40 years ago."

The Use of Expert Witness Testimony

The trial itself did not include any novel issues of law, but was evidence-driven. Both sides sought to use both lay and expert testimony to authenticate the art work in question.

In a trial where the authenticity of an artwork is in question, it is common for the parties to call expert witnesses to seek to persuade the trier of fact that the work is genuine, or not. Here, the plaintiffs proffered an expert witness who claimed that the painting was by Doig. Prior to trial, the defendants moved to exclude this proffered expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

The plaintiffs' expert witness did not have longstanding, specific familiarity with Doig's work, but did have approximately 40 years of experience in art appraisal and authentication. Indeed, the court determined that the plaintiffs' expert witness need not be an expert specifically in Doig's work and that the proffered expert witness had made an appropriate showing of his reliability such that his testimony would be useful at trial. In particular, the court found persuasive that the witness had performed a qualitative analysis of 45 acknowledged works by Doig and specific qualitative factors of 11 known works by Doig. Further, the plaintiffs' expert witness compared the types of paint, similarities in styles, shapes and positioning, and repeated lineatures by superimposing lines from known paintings to the questioned ones. Accordingly, the trial court found that the plaintiffs' expert's approach of superimposing lines that show similarity among works was a refinement of methods commonly used by art appraisers, and was therefore admissible.

The court also permitted the expert to testify despite having a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Doig had claimed that because the plaintiffs had promised one of their experts a 25 percent share of the plaintiffs' recovery, that expert should therefore be excluded. But the court found that "few experts testify out of the goodness of their heart," and that the arrangement did not "run afoul of the rule against employing expert witnesses on a contingency fee basis."

Further, the court permitted plaintiffs to proffer the testimony of a witness who is a trained art historian and appraiser to testify regarding the current value of the questioned work, such that if the work was accepted as authentic, it would fetch approximately $6 million to $8 million in the contemporary art market. In particular, the court found that the proffered valuation expert was "intimately familiar with the art market's dynamics" and permitted him to testify.

For the defense's part, Doig called an art historian who referred to himself as "a connoisseur of (Doig's) works." This expert witness testified that the plaintiffs' expert's methods of identifying the work as one of Doig's were "entirely unreliable" and that "if you go looking for coincidences, you'll find them." He further found that the 25 percent commission payable to the plaintiffs' expert was inappropriate, opining that "an authenticator should have no stake."

Further, the court noted that, in the context of a bench trial, a Federal Rule of Evidence 702 challenge was less dangerous because keeping unreliable testimony from a jury was not of concern.

The Documentary Evidence and Key Lay Witness Testimony

At trial, both sides called numerous witnesses. Doig testified regarding the mechanisms he uses to create his work, including projections and photographs to create images on canvas, as well as other methods, including the creation of collages and stencils and the kinds of paints he uses to create color. Doig pointed out that the process that he uses is complicated and not easily replicated. The plaintiffs contended that Doig refused to acknowledge that the painting was by his own hand because it showed that he had been using similar, formulaic compositions for over 40 years.

Yet, as always, documentary evidence matters. The basis of the plaintiffs' case was apparently undermined by their inability to adduce at trial any written confirmation that Doig was, in fact, at the detention facility at the time that the plaintiffs claimed that he created the work in question. Although the lack of documentation may not have proven fatal to the plaintiffs' claims had other evidence been available, such as significant eyewitness testimony, the plaintiffs' apparent inability to provide any credible third-party testimony showing that Doig was at the detention facility surely did not help their claims. Indeed, the plaintiffs did not produce any records of Doig actually being imprisoned in the Thunder Bay detention facility, but claimed that was because he was a minor and his records were either expunged or the relevant paperwork was simply lost.

Conversely, the defense's ability to show that yearbook photos from Doig's high school in Toronto demonstrated that he was a senior in high school when the painting was allegedly being worked on at Thunder Bay, was highly persuasive to the trier of fact. Ultimately, the court found that a university ID photo from 1976 photo that the plaintiffs had claimed was Doig was "quite plainly different" from the photo of Doig in his high school yearbook.

Moreover, the judge said that a past statement by Mr. Doig that he was not in high school was understandable given the amount of time that had passed, and that the plaintiffs' "errors" and apparent lack of recollections "are far more severe." Further undermining the plaintiffs' case was testimony presented by the defense from the sister of the deceased artist, one Pete Doige, who was called to the stand to confirm that her brother was the artist in question.

The Court's Ruling and Implications for Practitioners

Perhaps the plaintiffs' expert's relative lack of familiarity with Doig's work was instrumental to the judge's reasoning, although it is unclear that a different expert would have changed the outcome. One could surmise that it would have been potentially beneficial for the plaintiffs to have an expert who had a long-standing familiarity with Doig's work, rather than an abstract understanding of Doig's methods when creating a painting.

Further, one could surmise that the defendants' expert, who testified that he had significant familiarity with Doig's work, may have persuaded the judge to rule in Doig's favor not only because he questioned the methodology of the plaintiffs' expert, but also because the defendant's expert effectively questioned whether the plaintiffs' expert's financial interest in the outcome of the case could have created unfair bias.

What can be gleaned from the trial court's decision is that expert witness testimony did not appear to be conclusive, and the battle of the experts that transpired as to authenticity did not seem to play a dispositive role in the judge's decision in case of "mistaken identity."

Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence at trial revealed hat the case was about imperfect memories, coincidences and mistaken identity, and that the work was not by Doig.

And so, regardless of the high-profile nature and complex intrigue behind the plaintiffs' allegations of events, there lies some simple and basic truths about litigation: Actual evidence, not necessarily the battle of experts, may be the difference between victory and defeat.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.