Law Commons^™

Consequences Of Power, Tamara Relis

Scholarly Works

This Article challenges a basic premise that litigants and their attorneys broadly understand and desire similar things from litigation-track mediation processes. In providing new empirical research from medical malpractice cases, I offer disconcerting evidence of the surprising degree to which perceptions and meanings ascribed to these litigation-track processes are not only diverse, but frequently contradictory. I demonstrate that notwithstanding their different allegiances, lawyers on all sides of cases have correspondingly similar understandings of the meaning and purpose of litigation-track mediations. At the same time, I show how plaintiffs and defendants have the same understandings and visions of what mediation is …

"It's Not About The Money!": A Theory On Misconceptions Of Plaintiffs' Litigation Aims, Tamara Relis

Scholarly Works

This Article examines from a new angle a long-standing debate on a central question of the legal system: why plaintiffs sue and what they seek from litigation. Legal research has documented various extra-legal aims or non-economic agendas of plaintiffs who commence legal proceedings for various case-types. However, current debates have failed to address this issue in depth from the perspectives of plaintiffs themselves, subsequent to lawyers conditioning them on legal system realities and translating their disputes into legally cognizable compartments. Nor have understandings of plaintiffs' aims been examined from the perspectives of defense lawyers. These are significant gaps in the …

Reassessing Damages In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud class actions. Instead, courts have tried in vain to fashion common-law deceit and misrepresentation remedies to fit open-market fraud. The result is a relatively ineffective system with a hallmark feature: unpredictable damage awards. This poses a significant fraud deterrence problem from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint.

In 2005, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify open-market damage principles and to facilitate earlier dismissal of cases without compensable economic losses. Instead, in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, it further confused the damage issue by (1) perpetuating the …

The Relationship Between Defense Counsel, Policyholders, And Insurers: Nevada Rides Yellow Cab Toward "Two-Client" Model Of Tripartite Relationship. Are Cumis Counsel And Malpractice Claims By Insurers Next?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

It happens constantly in civil litigation. An insurance company hires a lawyer to defend its policyholder from a third party’s claim of injury. But just who is the lawyer’s “client?” Is it the policyholder who is the named defendant in the case and is “represented” in court proceedings? Or is it the insurer who, in most cases, selected the attorney, pays the attorney, supervises the litigation, and has (by the terms of the liability insurance policy) the right to settle the case, even over the objections of the policyholder? Ordinarily, the liability insurer has both the duty to defend a …

Lawyer Professional Responsibility In Litigation, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

A perennially-vexing litigation issue concerns the limits of permissible attorney argument. More than a few lawyers have been tripped up by the occasional fuzziness of the line between aggressive advocacy and improper appeals to passion or prejudice. See Craig Lee Montz, Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases, 28 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 67 (2001-2002)(problem of violations results from lack of uniformity and clarity of ground rules as well as errors of counsel). In Cohen v. Lioce, 149 P.3d 916 (Nev. 2006) the Nevada Supreme Court both provided significant guidance …

Of Frivolous Litigation And Runaway Juries: A View From The Bench, Thomas A. Eaton

Scholarly Works

The political case for tort reform is based in large measure on the perception that there are too many frivolous law suits and too many excessive jury awards. Where there is considerable empirical evidence casting doubt on both these propositions, they remain the linchpins of the tort reform movement. Scholars, lobbyists, and legislators all have had a voice in the tort reform debates. The viewpoints of trial judges, however, have been largely absent. This is unfortunate because trial judges are the government officials with the closest view of the tort litigation system. They are the ones who see tort litigation …