Law Commons^™

Resolving The Crisis In U.S. Merger Regulation: A Transatlantic Alternative To The Perpetual Litigation Machine, Dan Awrey, Blanaid Clarke, Sean J. Griffith

Faculty Scholarship

Regulation by litigation has driven U.S. merger regulation to crisis. The reliance on private lawsuits to police disclosures and potential conflicts of interest in mergers, takeovers, and other control transactions has resulted in the filing of claims after every major transaction. However, it has failed to achieve meaningful benefits for shareholders and has instead deprived them of potentially valuable rights. Regulation by litigation has devolved into attorney rent-seeking, and the raft of substantive and procedural reforms aimed at resolving the crisis has failed. There is an alternative to regulation by litigation. Drawing upon the code and panel-based models of merger …

Ad Hoc Procedure, Pamela K. Bookman, David L. Noll

Faculty Scholarship

Ad hoc procedure” seems like an oxymoron. A traditional model of the civil justice system depicts courts deciding cases using impartial procedures that are defined in advance of specific disputes. This model reflects a process-based account of the rule of law in which the process through which laws are made helps to ensure that lawmakers act in the public interest. Judgments produced using procedures promulgated in advance of specific disputes are legitimate because they are the product of fair rules of play designed in a manner that is the opposite of ad hoc.

Actual litigation frequently reveals the inadequacy of …

Threatening Litigation, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Litigation Isolationism, Pamela K. Bookman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past two decades, U.S. courts have pursued a studied avoidance of transnational litigation. The resulting litigation isolationism appears to be driven by courts’ desire to promote separation of powers, international comity, and the interests of defendants. This Article demonstrates, however, that this new kind of “avoidance” in fact frequently undermines not only these values but also other significant U.S. interests by continuing to interfere with foreign relations and driving plaintiffs to sue in foreign courts.

This Article offers four contributions: First, it focuses the conversation about transnational litigation on those doctrines designed to avoid it—that is, doctrines that …

The Problem Of Settlement Class Actions, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

This article argues that class actions should never be certified solely for purposes of settlement. Contrary to the widespread “settlement class action” practice that has emerged in recent decades, contrary to current case law permitting settlement class certification, and contrary to recent proposals that would extend and facilitate settlement class actions, this article contends that settlement class actions are ill-advised as a matter of litigation policy and illegitimate as a matter of judicial authority. This is not to say that disputes should not be resolved on a classwide basis, or that class actions should not be resolved by negotiated resolutions. …

Uncertainty And The Advantage Of Collective Settlement Symposium: The Limits Of Predictability And The Value Of Uncertainty: Sixteenth Annual Clifford Symposium On Tort Law And Social Policy, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Judgments are printed in black and white; reality comes in shades of gray. The settlement palette available to negotiating parties, unlike the adjudication palette available to judges and juries, offers a range of grays to suit the realities of uncertain liability, uncertain causation, and uncertain damages. Settlement thus offers certain advantages over adjudication. I am not referring to process advantages, such as speed, economy, privacy, and relationship preservation. Rather, I am referring to the idea that settlements may offer outcomes that more accurately comport with justice under the relevant facts and law. There is, of course, a long-running debate over …

Trouble With All-Or-Nothing Settlements, The Symposium: Aggregate Justice: Perspectives Ten Years After Amchem And Ortiz, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

When defendants settle litigation involving multiple plaintiffs, they often insist that they will settle only if they obtain releases from all or nearly all of the plaintiffs in the group. If a defendant is going to spend money to resolve claims, it prefers to take its hit and move on. As one experienced settlement administrator puts it, when a defendant approaches plaintiffs' lawyers to discuss the settlement of a mass dispute, the "subject might be broached in various terms, [but] the underlying message is the same-'How much will it cost us to get out of all of these cases?" A …

Ethically Representing A Lying Cooperator: Disclosure As The Nuclear Deterrent, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Court-Ordered Confidentiality In Discovery Symposium: Secrecy In Litigation: I: Article, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

The debate over discovery confidentiality has raged for over twenty years, since before the Supreme Court's decision in Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, and it shows no sign of fading. If anything, issues of litigation confidentiality appear to have gained increased attention in recent years. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina attracted nationwide attention in 2002 when it adopted a local rule severely restricting secret settlements and addressing other aspects of court-ordered confidentiality. In 2004 the Federal Judicial Center completed an empirical study of sealed settlements. It seems that each month of 2005 brought new …

Safe-Conduct Theory Of The Alien Tort Statute, The, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, Professor Lee introduces a novel explanation of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) - a founding-era enactment that has achieved modern prominence as a vehicle for international human rights litigation. He demonstrates how the statute was intended to address violations of something called a "safe conduct" - a sovereign promise of safety to aliens from injury to their persons and property. The safe-conduct theory advances a new modern role for the ATS to redress torts committed by private actors - including aliens - with a U.S. sovereign nexus, and not for international law violations committed by anyone anywhere. …

Teaching Reflective Lawyering In A Small Case Litigation Clinic: A Love Letter To My Clinic Papers Presented At The Ucla/Ials Conference On Enriching Clinical Education, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

This article describes a live client, small case, teaching and learning centered, criminal defense clinic set in a high volume urban court. It offers concrete suggestions about how clinical educators can help students develop analytic and technical skills. The clinic model is conceived in three phases: giving students the opportunity to develop a contextualized understanding of the client; guiding students through strategic analysis and planning; and focusing students' litigation strategies on executing their tactical vision for their client. The article argues that this clinical setting structures the students' experiences so that they develop a complex and deeply moral lawyerly problem …

Doing Good, Doing Well Symposium, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Rather than focusing on the differences between tort lawyers and activists as they ally with each other, this Article focuses on the motivations and explanations of the tort lawyers themselves. Positioned at the intersection of big-money practice and social change litigation, mass torts provide a useful study in multiple motivations. While financial incentives for plaintiffs' lawyers explain much of what happens in mass torts, policy objectives come into play as well, at least in the lawyers' rhetoric. Despite the obvious difficulty distinguishing reasons from rhetoric and rationalization, it is worth exploring the significance of mixed motives for lawyers who are …

Typology Of Aggregate Settlements, A , Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

It is odd, considering how often lawyers engage in aggregate settlements, that no one seems able to explain what "aggregate settlement" means. It is one of the most important yet least defined terms in complex litigation. Lawyers and judges talk about aggregate settlements as though it were obvious what the term signifies and as though it describes a single thing. In fact, group settlements in multiparty litigation vary significantly. And they vary in ways that make it difficult to determine whether certain deals ought to be understood as collective settlements or simply as groups of individual settlements bundled together. This …

Don't Believe Everything You Think: Cognitive Bias In Legal Decision Making, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses the role of cognitive bias in legal decision making. Drawing on research in cognitive science and law, it explores the impact of cognitive bias on both lawyers and clients. These often subtle mental biases can lead to pervasive errors in decision making by causing us to ignore important information and make inaccurate predictions. They may lead a client to underestimate the risk of litigation. They may also lead a lawyer to miscategorize a client's value choice as a misjudgement of fact. The article offers illustrative stories of the impact of bias on both client and lawyer and …

Coattail Class Actions: Reflections On Microsoft, Tobacco, And The Mixing Of Public And Private Lawyering In Mass Litigation , Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Ask anyone who follows legal news to name the two biggest litigation news stories in the United States at the start of the twenty-first century, and they will answer without blinking: Microsoft and tobacco. The Microsoft litigation, they will tell you, claims a place in the pantheon of antitrust landmarks that includes Standard Oil, Alcoa, and AT&T. The tobacco litigation is the most massive in a string of mass torts including asbestos, Dalkon Shield, and breast implants; it is arguably the most important public health matter ever litigated. Microsoft and tobacco each fit so well and so interestingly in their …

Informal Aggregation: Procedural And Ethical Implications Of Coordination Among Counsel In Related Lawsuits, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Even when related claims are not aggregated by any formal procedural mechanism, the lawyers involved in the separate lawsuits often coordinate their efforts. Such "informal aggregation" raises important questions about the boundaries of a dispute and the boundaries of the lawyer-client relationship. As an ethical matter, the central question is whether a lawyer owes ethical duties to a coordinating lawyer's client. Looking at confidentiality, loyalty, conflicts of interest, and malpractice, Professor Erichson suggests that ethical safeguards for clients of coordinating lawyers are neither strong enough nor explicit enough to provide adequate protection, and the problem inheres in the nature of …

Foreword Symposium: Multidistrict Litigation And Aggregation Alternatives: Foreword, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

On March 30, 2001, a somewhat surprising discussion took place among two judges, two plaintiffs' lawyers, a defense lawyer, and a legal scholar. The occasion was a Seton Hall Law Review symposium on federal multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). What made the discussion surprising was not what the participants said of their experiences with MDL, but rather the extent to which they discussed things other than MDL. Much of the discussion addressed state court litigation beyond the reach of MDL, and federal court aggregation techniques other than MDL. While the presenters left no doubt that MDL retains a central role in the …

The Uniqueness Of Federal Prosecutors, Fred C. Zacharias, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mass Tort Litigation And Inquisitorial Justice, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

In the past decade, settlement class actions have become increasingly popular in mass tort litigation, having been used successfully in cases such as the Dalkon Shield litigation, the Bjork-Shiley heart valve litigation, and the orthopedic bone screw litigation. Although the Supreme Court's opinion in Amchem has engendered some confusion over the continued viability of mass tort settlement class actions, it appears that such settlements remain a dominant approach to resolving mass tort lawsuits. With increasing frequency, plaintiffs and defendants come to court holding hands, and courts must launch their own vigorous inquiries into the merits of the parties' proffered settlement. …

Hare And Hounds: The Fugitive Defendant's Constitutional Right To Be Pursued, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Through A Glass, Darkly: How The Court Sees Motions To Disqualify Criminal Defense Lawyers , Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

Although raised frequently in the lower courts, the question of what the trial judge's role is in conflict-of-interest cases has, for nearly half a century, lurked in the background of the Supreme Court's decisions concerning the scope of a criminal defendant's right to the undivided loyalty of his attorney. Last term, as its conflict-of-interest jurisprudence reached middle age, the Court had the opportunity to articulate its views on that question. In Wheat v. United States, the Court held that a trial judge has discretion to disqualify defense counsel, even over the defendant's objection, if a serious possibility for a conflict …