Can the parties entrust judicial expertise?

1. Can the parties entrust judicial expertise? In view of the difference in effectiveness and status between the appraisal conclusion made by the parties themselves after entrusting the relevant departments for appraisal and the appraisal conclusion issued by the court according to the application for entrustment, lawyer Wang Bingguang of Henan Fangbang Law Firm made a brief analysis and induction based on his previous experience in handling such cases and combined with the trial practice, with a view to helping everyone. If the court entrusts an appraisal institution to conduct appraisal upon the application of the parties, if the parties are not satisfied with the appraisal conclusion issued by the appraisal institution, they may apply for re-entrustment of appraisal; If the court entrusts an appraisal institution to conduct appraisal by itself, the appraisal conclusion issued by the appraisal institution shall serve as the basis for finalizing the case. However, the rebuttal of the parties is enough to overturn their conclusions or meet the conditions for re-appraisal. Due to the irregularity of the entrustment procedure and many tendencies of self-interest and benefiting others, the evidential force of the appraisal conclusion produced in this way should be analyzed in detail: (1) The self-appraisal conclusion submitted by the parties to the court must be examined and cross-examined in court, otherwise it cannot be directly used as evidence for finalizing the case; (2) If the other party has no objection to the appraisal conclusion and does not need re-appraisal, it shall be used as evidence for ascertaining the facts after cross-examination; (3) If the other party disagrees with the appraisal conclusion, and there is sufficient evidence to refute the facts identified in the appraisal conclusion, the other party may apply to the court for re-appraisal, and the appraisal conclusion will not take effect. Second, the process of judicial expertise (1) entrustment: judicial expertise institutions and social professional judicial appraisers accept the entrustment of judicial organs to engage in judicial expertise of entrusted matters; The entrustment of non-litigation case evaluation is subject to industry norms. 1. Judicial authentication institutions accept the entrustment of judicial organs and arbitration institutions; 2, in litigation cases, in the case of clear burden of proof, judicial authentication institutions can also accept the parties entrusted to conduct judicial authentication. When the parties entrust judicial expertise, it is generally carried out through a law firm. (II) Acceptance: After receiving the power of attorney, the judicial authentication institution will examine the matters entrusted by the client and make the following decision: 1. If it meets the acceptance conditions and can decide to accept it immediately, the judicial authentication institution shall sign a judicial authentication entrustment acceptance contract with the client; 2, can't immediately decide whether to accept it, it shall issue a "receipt" to the client, and make a decision on whether to accept it within 7 days from the date of receiving the entrusted materials; 3, does not meet the acceptance conditions, decided not to accept, should return the identification materials and explain the reasons to the client; 4. For the official letter, the judicial authentication institution shall make a written reply on whether or not to accept it within 7 days from the date of receiving the official letter. (3) Initial appraisal: After accepting the case, the appraisal institution shall assign personnel with social professional judicial appraisal qualifications to undertake the appraisal work, and the same appraisal shall be conducted by two personnel with social professional judicial appraisal qualifications. In addition, judicial expertise has to go through the process of supplementary appraisal, re-appraisal, review appraisal, issuance of judicial expertise documents, and appearance in court. The judicial expertise process is complex and the audit process is strict. On the one hand, it reflects the rigor of the law, which is selfless and will not show mercy to anyone. On the other hand, it embodies the protective role played by the law.