“Ambulance chasing” is the prerogative of the unscrupulous lawyer, and it should remain so. Unfortunately some physicians give the impression of being parties to this pursuit; and such behavior is undoubtedly responsible for much of the criticism which has been directed toward the participation of physicians in legal problems. Neither the legal nor medical profession can be fairly judged by the misbehavior of a few isolated individuals. Both great instrumentalities of social welfare have been diligent in promoting high ethical standards and in correcting deviations therefrom. One might reasonably expect a maximum of harmonious functioning between them. Actually this is not always so. One need only listen to private conversations of both lawyers and doctors to realize how deep their mutual discontent may be-sometimes even their frank contempt. The two fields of endeavor come into most intimate relationship on these occasions when a physician testifies as an expert in a court of law. Most medical expert testimony is given in courts of civil law as contrasted with courts of crinsinoJ law. This is not generally appreciated as criminal cases usually attract publicity because of the crime in question and the gravity of possible punishment. The reduction of medical testimony in criminal cases has been effected in a variety of ways, a discussion of which is not within the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that for every criminal case in which a neuropsychiatrist testifies there are at least 20 and probably ioo civil cases in which a medical expert testifies. Yet this subject has received relatively little attention. One of the reasons is that the field has been neglected by both medical and law schools: both are too engrossed in their own special fields. This problem was faced in a somewhat more realistic manner in prewar Europe where medicolegal institutes were established factors.