We are concerned that the editorial by Series & Herring ^{Reference Series and Herring1} is likely falsely to give readers the impression that the Pool judgment represents a change in the law of expert evidence. The judgment has not changed the law in any way. And we would advise doctors who work, or wish to work, as experts should read the detailed analysis of the current law concerning the definition, in law, of expertise recently published in BJPsych Advances. ^{Reference Rix, Haycroft and Eastman2} This includes a review of the seminal cases, and also some other recent relevant judgments, none of which is referred to in the editorial. Psychiatrists undertaking expert witness practice should also refer to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' College Report CR193, ^{Reference Rix, Eastman and Adshead3} soon to be amended after discussions with professional and regulatory authorities so as to make the law as clear as possible to experts.