Legal Profession Commons^™

Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The idea for this article came from the author's representation of a national non-profit consumer rights organization in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement. The organization's appellate briefs argued that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ views, the settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" (which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)). The district court also deferred to the lawyers' reputations as talented and honest lawyers.

In this article, …

The Story Of Upjohn Co. V. United States: One Man's Journey To Extend Lawyer-Client Confidentiality, And The Social Forces That Affected It, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The attorney-client privilege protects information a client provides an attorney in confidence for the purpose of securing legal advice. But suppose the client is not a person but a corporation and can only speak through its agents and employees. What then are the contours of the privilege? If the corporation's attorney asks an employee for information relating to pending litigation or other legal matters, is the conversation privileged? Some courts said that no communications to a corporate attorney were privileged unless they came from members of the corporate control group, loosely those people who had authority to direct the attorney's …

Do The Haves Come Out Ahead In Alternative Justice Systems? Repeat Players In Adr, Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Marc Galanter's essay, Why the "Haves" Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change (Why the "Haves" Come out Ahead), published twenty-five years ago, set an important agenda for those who care about the distributive effects of legal processes, including those of us who have been engaged in jurisprudential, intellectual, and empirical debates about the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative and conventional legal procedures. As a document of legal intellectual history, this Article was formed in the crucible of the Legal Mobilization and Modernization program at Yale Law School that spawned so many "law and . …

Independent Counsel And Vigorous Investigation And Prosecution, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay draws on the examples of Watergate and Iran-Contra to offer a new perspective on Independent Counsel and their ability to investigate and prosecute high-level wrongdoing. The current consensus is that an Independent Counsel, appointed by judges of the special court pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, will invariably investigate and prosecute crimes more vigorously than a Special Prosecutor appointed by the President or the Attorney General. Watergate and Iran-Contra suggest, however, that there are institutional and political factors that make analysis of the comparative tendencies of the two types of prosecutors more complex and dependent on circumstance. …

The Collision Between New Discovery Amendments And Expert Testimony Rules, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The young litigator's nightmare was always the same. He was in medieval Europe, ready to engage in a sword fight with the expert swordsman representing his arch rival. After countless hours of preparation, he felt confident that he would be able to hold his own against the swordsman. But when the swordsman drew his lengthy rapier from its sheath, the young attorney pulled only a short dagger from his scabbard. Realizing that he was doomed to defeat, he tossed his dagger into the air and ran from the scene with the laughter of the onlookers ringing in his ears.

The …

Review Of The New Deal Lawyers, By Peter H. Irons, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews The New Deal Lawyers by Peter H. Irons (1982).

The government lawyers who helped shape and defend New Deal agencies have received little attention from scholars. Any oversight has now, however, been redressed. The New Deal Lawyers provides a detailed and careful study of the litigation process that preceded the New Deal's 1937 court triumphs. Peter Irons' book focuses on the activities of three key agencies and their general counsels: the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and Donald Richberg; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) and Jerome Frank; and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Charles Fahy. Each …