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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions