The director of a company fined by the financial services authority and involved in court litigation has been appointed to act as a court expert.

Court experts should be “above reproach”, according to one seasoned lawyer, while a report on the reform of the legal system had proposed due diligence be carried out before their appointment.

However, in this case the court expert, Matthew Pace, is a director and shareholder of MFSP Financial Services Management Limited, which in October 2012 was fined €12,000 by the Malta Financial Services Authority and had its licence to sell complex products restricted for three years.

Matthew Pace, director and shareholder of MFSP.

This was after an investigation into sales practices determined that in a number of instances, MFSP failed to act in the best interest of investors. An appeal filed on this decision is still being heard.

A number of civil cases were also filed against the company by former clients accusing it of losing their investments due to negligence.

Documents seen by this newspaper show that Mr Pace was last year appointed by Magistrate Monica Vella to act as a court expert and to draw up reports in a case involving money laundering and theft.

The courts’ administration was asked if it was aware of Mr Pace’s circumstances but a senior official told this newspaper to send its questions to the Ministry of Justice. There was no reply from the ministry by the time of writing.

When contacted, Mr Pace declined to confirm that he was acting as a court expert or to say whether he was drawing up similar reports on behalf of other members of the judiciary.

“Please be informed that I can give no information with regard to enquiries pending before the courts since these are of a confidential nature,” he said.

Asked whether he considered his appointment to be ethical, he replied: “MFSP has no cases pending in court related to fraud. However, like any other commercial company it is true that MFSP has pending cases of a civil nature.”

As a court expert, Mr Pace acts as a formal court official and has the legal power to gain access to sensitive information including bank accounts of those involved in the particular court case he is appointed to.

A number of lawyers yesterday expressed disappointment at the way court experts were sometimes appointed, saying the system needed a total overhaul as suggested by the Law Reform Commission presided over by former judge of the European Court of Human Rights Giovanni Bonello.

“As court officials, court experts should be above reproach like the members of the judiciary who appoint them,” one seasoned lawyer said. “Having doubts in one expert or another does not increase people’s trust in the legal system.” In his report, Dr Bonello had suggested drawing up lists of experts in various fields after carrying out a due diligence exercise. The judiciary would then be able to select their experts from that list.

In August 2013, the Chamber of Advocates had described as “a racket” the way court experts were being appointed.

The Chamber called for a total overhaul of the system, saying that “court experts are chosen depending on their friendship with police inspectors and magistrates and the lack of transparency is alarming”.

Court experts are paid by the government on behalf of the law courts.