Litigation

The Future of Arbitration and the World of Class Action Litigation - Podcast

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

Hiro Aragaki, Christopher Drahozal, Michael S. Greve, Peter B. Rutledge, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

AT&T v. Concepción is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in many years. Most of the discussion to date has centered on its implications for the future of class action litigation. This panel, however, will examine its implications for the future of arbitration. In particular, our experts will examine the Court's interpretation of the preemptive force of the Federal Arbitration Act and what it means for other state attempts to regulate arbitration. Featuring Prof. Hiro Aragaki of Loyola Law School Los Angeles; Dr. Michael S. Greve of the American Enterprise Institute; Prof. Christopher R. Drahozal of The University of Kansas School of Law; Prof. Peter B. "Bo" Rutledge of the University of Georgia School of Law; and Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt University Law School as the moderator. [Listen now!]

Who Should Receive Unclaimed Class Action Awards? The Tale of Cy Pres - Podcast

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Theodore H. Frank, Patrick Perotti, Margaret A. Little

Cy Pres, a doctrine borrowed from the law of trusts, has in recent years been adopted by courts in litigation to distribute class action funds to purposes or recipients other than those presented by the original class action plaintiffs. This once rare, now increasingly common practice, has come under fire for lacking a foundation in applicable law and representing a wholly discretionary exercise of judicial power. Theodore H. Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness, discussed the history and practice of this little-known and less-well-understood power of class action courts. Attorney Patrick J. Perotti, of the class action law firm Dworken & Bernstein and "Ohio Lawyers Give Back," presented the case for the use of this practice in class actions. Margaret A. Little, Director of the Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center, moderated. After their remarks, the speakers took questions from the callers.

Florida Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare: It All Comes Down to Broccoli

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Karen Harned

On August 12, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress exceeded its authority by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance through the health care law’s “individual mandate.” A 2-1 majority held that enacting the individual mandate was beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. However, the court held that while the individual mandate was unconstitutional, it was severable from the law as a whole, and the rest of the law could stand... Read more!

How to Think About Errors, Costs, and Their Allocation

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Ronald J. Allen

There is an ongoing robust debate about the structure of litigation in general, and in particular, about access to the courts. For a considerable period of time, the mantra that the courts should be readily available to all to present claims that their rights have been violated has dominated both academic discourse and perhaps significantly influenced the structure of litigation. The conventional view that the courts should be freely open to all was dealt a blow by the Iqbal and Twombly decisions, which imposed greater gatekeeping responsibilities on the federal district courts. Predictably these decisions provoked a storm of protest, in large measure because they may indeed make it more difficult for many petitioners to have their petitions considered on the merits.⁴ However, whether that result is a social harm or a positive good depends on matters in addition to simply winnowing the field of potential disputants, a point neglected by much of contemporary scholarship in civil procedure. That scholarship has had a laser-like focus on facilitating the bringing of claims, and in doing so makes two serious errors. It neglects that litigation is one small part of a larger social optimization problem, and has a peculiar conception of errors and costs and how they should be allocated. In this brief paper, I provide the analytical background to these assertions... [Read more!]

Twombly in Context: Or Why Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b) Is Unconstitutional

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

E. Donald Elliott

Viewed from the standpoint of strategic incentives, Rule 4(b) is the foundation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: the state compels someone to appear in court and expend resources to move or answer without regard to the merit of the claims brought. Rule 4(b) is probably unconstitutional, but it is certainly bad policy and creates a distorted incentive structure. Twombly is a well-intentioned but misdirected attempt to fix this fundamental problem in the incentives created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it focuses in the wrong place. The problem is created pre-service, and that is where it should be fixed... [Read more!]

A Modest Proposal for Human Limitations on Cyberdiscovery

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard Esenberg

I show my Civil Procedure students a video on electronically stored information (“ESI”) created by Jason Baron and Ralph Losey. The video, set to the type of pulsating electronic music normally heard prior to kickoff, sets forth a series of factoids about ESI. There will soon be more bytes of ESI than stars in the universe, it would take six million years to read each web page in the known universe, and we are awash in billions and trillions of e-mails, tweets, text messages and Google searches. The video refers to studies showing that most of this information is never produced—and often not even thought of—in the discovery process. It points out that the most common forms of retrieval, such as Boolean key word searches, find a relatively small percentage of “relevant” documents. For Baron and Losey, the “near future” is that litigants cannot “afford the whole truth,” but they suggest (with, I hope and suspect, tongues in cheek) that the “far future” is discovery conducted by artificial intelligence agents. The answer to the challenges of E-discovery, in other words, is the creation of E-lawyers... [Read more!]

Pleading, Discovery, and the Federal Rules: Exploring the Foundations of Modern Procedure

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Martin Redish

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are rapidly approaching their 75th birthday, which will come in the year 2013. 75 years is a long time, and while the Rules have of course been amended significantly at various points over the years, their basic structure remains largely the same as in their original formulation. When first promulgated in 1938, the Rules had an immediate and dramatic impact on civil adjudication by replacing long accepted procedural practices with very different methods of resolving disputes. There can be little question that the new system, spearheaded by the genius of Advisory Committee Reporter Charles Clark, radically altered not only the actual procedures themselves, but also the underlying set of values that had previously rationalized our procedural system. The problem, right from the start, was that there was precious little articulation of either what the new value system was or why it was deemed preferable to the value structure underlying the old system... [Read more!]

Business Cases and the Roberts Supreme Court

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Martin J. Newhouse

The statement that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, and more specifically the Court majority of five Republican-appointed Justices, has been unusually favorable, even biased, toward business interests is a familiar one in the media and much-repeated among liberal legal commentators (including, with respect to the 2010 Citizens United decision, the President of the United States). But is this true? Have the Roberts Court’s rulings in cases affecting business interests actually been especially favorable to those interests? This article seeks to answer this question. [Read more!]

Attorneys Fees in Class Actions - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Theodore H. Frank, Alan B. Morrison, Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Lester Brickman, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

The Litigation Practice Group hosted this panel on "Attorneys Fees in Class Actions" on Thursday, November 10, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The panel featured Prof. Lester Brickman of Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt University Law School; Mr. Theodore H. Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness; Dean Alan B. Morrison of The George Washington University Law School; Mr. Jeffrey S. Jacobson of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as the moderator.

The Evolution of Competition Policy - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Dean A. Reuter

As Mexico continues to emerge as an important economy on the international front, how can it best fashion its laws and policies governing business practices and access to the courts? What issues will the Mexican courts need to address under the new class action law? Should Cofeco urge the courts to adopt a price-squeeze theory of antitrust liability? And how might the resolution of these issues impact businesses and consumers in Mexico. These and other important questions were considered by our experts at The Future of Business Law in Mexico conference, held on October 20, 2011, in Mexico City. Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia opened the conference with a keynote address on "The Evolution of Competition Policy". He was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at the Federalist Society.

Antitrust Enforcement and Price Squeeze - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST

Luis Felipe Lucatero Govea, George L. Priest, J. Gregory Sidak, Carlos T. Bea

With Cofeco due to issue its final opinion in its recent action against Telcel, this panel will discuss whether the Ley Federal de Competencia Económica (LFCE – Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Law) can or should be read to include a price-squeeze cause of action, the ramifications of adopting a price-squeeze theory of liability, and the impact of such a decision on businesses and consumers. The panel will also examine how antitrust enforcement in Mexico compares with other countries – what factors should or must be considered as Mexico moves forward? How should Mexico consider consumer interests? This panel was held during The Future of Business Law in Mexico conference on October 20, 2011. Speakers included Mr. Luis Felipe Lucatero Govea, Head of the Unit for Prospective Analysis and Regulation at Mexico's Federal Commission of Telecommunications; Prof. George L. Priest of Yale Law School; Prof. J. Gregory Sidak, Chairman and Founder of Criterion Economics, LLC; and JudgeCarlos T. Bea of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the moderator.

Mexico's New Class Action Law - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST

Eduardo Facha Garcia, Luis Omar Guerrero Rodriguez, Marco Antonio Najera Martinez, George L. Priest, Carlos T. Bea

This panel will discuss the new class action law in Mexicoand how it compares with class action laws governing other countries. Our panel of experts will provide an overview of the new law along with insights into the many legal issues the Mexican courts will need to address, what companies doing business in Mexico need to do to prepare, and any potential risks of class action "abuse." This panel was held during The Future of Business Law in Mexico conference on October 20, 2011. Speakers included Mr. Eduardo Facha García, Founding Partner of López Melih, González, Facha y Estrada, SC; Mr. Luis Omar Guerrero Rodríguez, Partner at Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa SC and Head of the Antitrust Section of the Mexican Bar Association; Prof. George L. Priest of Yale Law School; and Judge Carlos T. Bea of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the moderator.

Class Action Watch September 2011

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

In this issue, experts in the field consider the implications of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion for class actions across the country, overtime exemption litigation in the pharmaceutical industry, the passage of an important class action law in Mexico, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act in Smith v. Bayer Corp. [Read now!]

Did the Supreme Court Just Kill the Class Action?

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Although it received lower billing than some of the Term’s other decisions, I suspect the most important decision of last Term (if not the last many Terms) may prove to be AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. The case involved a consumer fraud class action that was filed in federal court by the Concepcions. The Concepcions alleged that they had been promised free cellular phones if they signed a service agreement with AT&T, but that AT&T nonetheless charged them sales taxes on their phones. AT&T moved to dismiss the suit and compel arbitration because the service contract the Concepcions signed agreed to arbitrate any disputes. The Concepcions argued that the agreement was unconscionable because it waived their ability to join a class action. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the Supreme Court held, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia, that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted California’s unconscionability law and that the class action waiver was therefore enforceable...

Overtime Exemption Litigation Targets the Pharmaceutical Industry

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Brent D. Knight, Michelle G. Marks

In the last several years, pharmaceutical companies have been targeted by the plaintiffs’ bar for their overtime classification of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Dozens of plaintiffs have filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and state laws alleging that pharmaceutical sales representatives are misclassified as exempt from overtime pay requirements and are owed overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty in a workweek and, in some states (like California), over eight in a workday. Nearly all major pharmaceutical companies have been targeted in these actions, including industry giants such as Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals...

Piecing Together the Puzzle of Mexican Class Actions

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

William J. Crampton, Silvia Kim

After several years of debate, a long-awaited class action bill in Mexico became law. On August 31, 2011, the bill, which had passed the Federal Congress in April, was published in the Official Gazette. The law will become effective on March 1, 2012. As in other civil law jurisdictions, the procedures for class actions under this law do not necessarily resemble the procedures used in the U.S. or common law countries. For example, the majority of cases will not likely be filed by private class representatives. Such a claim is allowed, but standing is also granted to the Federal Consumer Protection Agency, Federal Environmental Protection Agency, National Commission for the Protection and Defense of Users of Financial Services, Federal Antitrust Authority, civil not-for-profit associations whose purpose is to protect the collective rights and interests at stake, and the federal attorney general. In addition, the law provides for either opt-in or opt-out claims, depending on the nature of the claim. If the claim seeks to protect the interests of society as a whole, the class will be opt-out. If the claim seeks recovery for an identifiable group of individuals, the class will be opt-in. The period for opting, however, will extend eighteen months after the judgment on common claims...

Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Relitigation Exception of the Anti-Injunction Act

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

J.B. Tarter

In Smith v. Bayer Corp., the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal district court could not enjoin a state court from considering whether to certify a class action. The Court applied two of its precedents in the non-class action setting to invalidate an injunction issued pursuant to the “relitigation exception” of the Anti-Injunction Act...

Lawyer Barons: What Their Contingency Fees Really Cost America - Podcast

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 EST

Lester Brickman, Margaret A. Little

In this podcast, Professor Lester Brickman discusses his new book, which is the culmination of his twenty-plus years of research into the impact contingency fees have on our legal system and our political system. Moderated by Margaret A. Little, Director of the The Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center. [Listen now!]

Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

The June 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Brown v. RJ Reynolds - The Proper Scope of Common Questions

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Andrew Trask

Class actions are not like other lawsuits. In a class action, an individual asks the court for permission to represent a group of people who have all been harmed in a similar way. As a result, the single most important debate in a class action is over certification—whether the lawsuit may proceed on behalf of a group of “similarly situated” people. And the single most important debate in certification is the debate over common issues: are there enough common issues to justify certifying a class for litigation, and possibly trial? ...

Loser Pays in Texas

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Ronen Avraham, E. Lee Parsley, Walter K. Olson, Dennis G. Jacobs

One year ago this month, Texas passed a much-talked-about “loser pays” bill. In certain cases, the law requires the losing party to pay the costs of the winning party. Theoretically, a loser pays law is thought to reduce litigation, as the plaintiff in a law suit now has something at stake – if he does not prevail, he must, under certain conditions, pay the costs of the defendant. Our experts will discuss the Texas law, its breadth, its conditions for applicability, and its effect on lawsuits in Texas. Featuring: Prof. Ronen Avraham of the University of Texas School of Law; Mr. E. Lee Parsley of E. Lee Parsley, P.C.; Mr. Walter Olson of the Cato Institute; and Judge Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as the moderator.

The Future of Arbitration and the World of Class Action Litigation

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

Hiro Aragaki, Michael S. Greve, Christopher Drahozal, Peter B. Rutledge, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Who Should Receive Unclaimed Class Action Awards? The Tale of Cy Pres

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Theodore H. Frank, Patrick Perotti

Cy Pres, a doctrine borrowed from the law of trusts, has in recent years been adopted by courts in litigation to distribute class action funds to purposes or recipients other than those presented by the original class action plaintiffs. This once rare, now increasingly common practice, has come under fire for lacking a foundation in applicable law and representing a wholly discretionary exercise of judicial power. Theodore H. Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness, will discuss the history and practice of this little-known and less-well-understood power of class action courts. Attorney Patrick J. Perotti, of the class action law firm Dworken & Bernstein and "Ohio Lawyers Give Back," will present the case for the use of this practice in class actions. Margaret A. Little, Director of the Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center, will moderate. After their remarks, the speakers will take questions from the callers.

The Future of Business Law in Mexico

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Carlos T. Bea, George L. Priest, J. Gregory Sidak, Eduardo Facha Garcia, Marco Antonio Najera Martinez, Dean A. Reuter, Luis Omar Guerrero Rodriguez, Luis Felipe Lucatero Govea

Changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Has the Time Come?

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST

Ronald J. Allen, E. Donald Elliott, Richard Esenberg, Martin Redish, Merrick B. Garland Pleading standards have been one area of concern in recent years for the U.S. Supreme Court, as evidenced by its decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley. Private practitioners have long debated other aspects of the Federal Rules, including the scope of permissible discovery, a party's obligation to preserve documents and other potential evidence, and which party (or perhaps which attorney) should bear the costs of discovery. Still others are questioning the basic fairness, from a legal and even constitutional perspective, of a system that, without any showing of reasonableness, allows one private party to make production demands of another private party. Three experts in the field of civil procedure will present papers on these and other related issues during our panel discussion.

2010 National Lawyers Convention

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Barry E. Carter, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Patrick McSweeney, Antonin Scalia, Dennis G. Jacobs, Marvin Ammori, Paul S. Atkins, John S. Baker, Jr., Randy E. Barnett, Sara Sun Beale, Bradford A. Berenson, Lillian R. BeVier, Carl T. Bogus, James Bopp Jr., Steven G. Calabresi, Michael A. Carvin, Ronald A. Cass, Michael Chertoff, Roger Clegg, Robert D. Cooter, R. Ted Cruz, Frank H. Easterbrook, John C. Eastman, Richard A. Epstein, William N. Eskridge, Jr., David French, Charles Fried, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Gerhardt, C. Boyden Gray, Thomas W. Hazlett, Christine Jolls, Douglas T. Kendall, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Edwin Meese III, Thomas W. Merrill, Paul R. Michel, John O. McGinnis, Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Michael S. Paulsen, Thomas R. Phillips, A. Raymond Randolph, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Mark F. Schultz, Bradley A. Smith, Paul M. Smith, Margaret D. Stock, Thomas J. Tauke, Clifford W. Taylor, Mark Tushnet, Eugene Volokh, Howard Waltzman, Ruth J. Wedgwood, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Mitch McConnell, Noah D. Bookbinder, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Brett M. Frischmann, Gigi B. Sohn, Kris W. Kobach, James C. Ho, William H. Pryor Jr., Joel R. Reidenberg, Diane S. Sykes, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Edith H. Jones, Ronald M. Levin, Victoria A. Lipnic, Roger Martella Jr., Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Roger Pilon, Rena I. Steinzor, Sarah B. Teslik, Peter J. Wallison, Arthur E. Wilmarth, John C. Yoo, Michael Barone, Michael S. Lee, Michael J. Madigan, Lanny J. Davis, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Jan Crawford, Carlos T. Bea, Kim Bobo, Shawn H. Chang, Thomas M. Hardiman, Jordan Lorence, Jeffrey P. Mahoney, Robert M. McDowell, Margaret E. McGuinness, Brandon Rees, David B. Sentelle, Jerry E. Smith, David Stras, Jeffrey S. Sutton, C. Gibson Vance, Pete Williams, Michael R. Pence, Daniel E. Lungren, Jeffrey Rosen

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 18 through Saturday, November 20 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 18 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

2009 National Lawyers Convention

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Guido Calabresi, Frank H. Easterbrook, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Paul S. Atkins, Randy E. Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, Linda Chavez, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cu�llar, Susan E. Dudley, Miguel Estrada, Richard A. Epstein, Steve Forbes, Maurice R. Greenberg, Michael S. Greve, Oona Hathaway, Peter N. Kirsanow, David G. Leitch, Michael W. McConnell, Burt Neuborne, Jeremy A. Rabkin, A. Raymond Randolph, Theodore M. Shaw, Stephen Bainbridge, Carlos T. Bea, Stephanie R. Breslow, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Alan E. Brownstein, Ronald A. Cass, John C. Eastman, C. Boyden Gray, Lisa Heinzerling, Edith H. Jones, David A. Katz, Brett M. Kavanaugh, F. Scott Kieff, Michael Livermore, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Paul G. Mahoney, Robert D. McTeer, Michael J. Meurer, Geoffrey P. Miller, Alan B. Morrison, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Michael Paese, Harvey L. Pitt, William H. Pryor Jr., Lucas "Scot" A. Powe Jr., Jamin Ben Raskin, Daniel B. Ravicher, Andrew J. Redleaf, Roberta Romano, David B. Sentelle, Catherine M. Sharkey, Amity Shlaes, Damon A. Silvers, Jerry E. Smith, Gigi B. Sohn, Ilya Somin, Bret Stephens, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Diane S. Sykes, Daniel E. Troy, J.W. Verret, Steven M.H. Wallman, John P. Walters, W. Bradley Wendel, Shirley J. Wilcher, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Stephen F. Williams, Todd J. Zywicki, John A. Allison, John S. Baker, Jr., Jennifer Walker Elrod, Malcolm M. Feeley, Thomas W. Hazlett, Roderick M. Hills Jr., Brian H. Hook, Daryl Joseffer, Annette L. Nazareth, Aryeh Neier, Jed Rubenfeld, Robert P. Young, Jr., David Zaring, Mark R. Levin, Thomas M. Hardiman, John F. Manning, William Black, Cornish F. Hitchcock, Steven J. Law, Harold Meyerson, Alex J. Pollock, Andrew L. Stern, Michael B. Mukasey, David Berenbaum, Robert M. McDowell, Mark F. Schultz, David M. McIntosh, Kyle E. McSlarrow, Seton Motley, Laura M. Olson, Marvin Ammori

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 12 through Saturday, November 14 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "The Federal Government's Economic Role in our Constitutional System." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 12 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

Regulation by Litigation: Boon or Bane?

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST

Andrew P. Morriss, Bruce Yandle, Andrew Dorchak, David C. Vladeck, Roger Martella Jr., Jonathan H. Adler Federal regulators, state attorneys general and plaintiffs attorneys increasingly rely upon litigation to impose regulatory constraints on private businesses. Through such “regulation by litigation” government officials and private attorneys bypass traditional processes and reorient regulatory priorities. In a new book, Regulation by Litigation (Yale University Press), Andrew Morriss, Bruce Yandle, and Andrew Dorchak argue that such “regulation by litigation” is attractive to regulators and activists because it provides an inappropriate and undemocratic shortcut to imposing regulatory burdens on private firms, and needs to be curbed. Others argue that regulation by litigation is an important regulatory tool that can help control corporate abuses and encourage the adoption of needed consumer protections. Why is regulation by litigation on the rise? Is regulation by litigation a problem? And, if so, how can it be controlled? Join the authors and prominent legal commentators for an exploration of these and related questions. [Register now!]

The Vioxx Settlement

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

The Federalist Society and the American Enterprise Institute are co-sponsoring a panel discussion on the Vioxx Settlement. The panel will discuss potential ethical concerns with the settlement, and consider how the case settled, particularly for so much less than originally anticipated, whether the settlement will stand up under legal challenge, and what will remain of the Vioxx litigation if it does. Please join us at AEI on Monday, January 7, at 11:45 a.m.

2007 National Lawyers Convention

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Randy E. Barnett, Robert H. Bork, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Jamie Gorelick, Gail Heriot, Neal K. Katyal, Alex Kozinski, Andrew C. McCarthy, Michael W. McConnell, Edwin Meese III, Theodore B. Olson, Walter K. Olson, Stephen Reinhardt, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Alan Sekulow, Nadine Strossen, George J. Terwilliger III, David C. Vladeck, Eugene Volokh, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Audi, John S. Baker, Jr., Michael Barone, Bob Barr, Carlos T. Bea, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Janice Rogers Brown, James S. Burling, Steven G. Calabresi, Lawrence W. Casey, Ronald A. Cass, Brett M. Kavanaugh This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Federalist Society and on November 15-17 we will be celebrating this milestone during our Annual National Lawyers Convention. The theme for this year's convention is "Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism." In addition to the numerous panels containing noted legal experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, The convention will also feature the Seventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, to be delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. The highlight of the convention will be the 25th Anniversary Gala, attended by many more special guests, which will be held in the Main Hall of Washington, DC's Union Station.
[Register now!]

Scheme Liability, Section 10(b), and Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EST

Stephen Bainbridge, Barbara Black, J. Robert Brown Jr., Eric A. Isaacson, Richard W. Painter, Ashley C. Parrish, Andrea Seidt On October 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, arguably the most important securities law case to reach the Court in a decade. In Stoneridge, the Court will consider whether primary liability under Section 10(b) extends to third-parties, such as auditors, attorneys, or vendors, who engage in allegedly fraudulent transactions with a public corporation. [Click here for more...]

What's Right and Wrong with Class Action Settlements

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EST

Theodore H. Frank, Paul Bland

Speakers:

Theodore H. Frank, Resident Fellow and Director of the AEI Liability Project , American Enterprise Institute
Paul Bland, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

Presentation of Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

Speakers:

Professor Ronald J. Allen, John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Michael K. Demetrio, Partner, Law Offices of Corboy & Demetrio
Craig A. Woods, Partner, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw

Contingency Fees in Class Action Lawsuits

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

Speakers:

John Beisner, O'Melveny & Myers
Ted Frank, American Enterprise Institute
Charles Stuckey, State Farm

How Should the Courts Interpret Split Decisions?

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Supreme Court occasionally renders plurality opinions, which may involve 4-1-4 decisions or any number of other formulations of justices where no clear majority on particular issues emerges. These plurality opinions often address significant issues yet, due to the lack of a clear majority, are difficult for the lower courts, the regulated community, and practitioners to interpret and apply. On June 21, the Federalist Society presented a live audiocast of a panel of experts who discussed these issues and more. [Click here to listen to a replay of this event]

Contingency Fees in Class Action Lawsuits

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

Speakers:

John Beisner, O'Melveny & Myers
Ted Frank, American Enterprise Institute
Charles Stuckey, State Farm