I’ll be speaking on a panel discussion of data privacy trends on May 4 in Chicago as part of PLI’s 22nd Annual Consumer Financial Services Institute. Other panels will discuss a broad range of excellent topics, including the future of the CFPB and other federal and state regulatory trends, consumer class action developments, TCPA litigation and regulatory trends, fair lending and debt collection practice issues, and ethics, just to name a few. In addition to the Chicago live program, PLI has another program schedule in New York in late May, which will be accompanied by a live webcast and groupcasts in several other cities. For more information, click the link below. Hope to see you there!
I’ve never used this blog as a platform for political commentary, but these are troubled times. I believe that it is vital for as many of us as possible to stand on principle and not let the current political climate devolve into something much worse. I waited with a feeling of dread in the minutes leading up to yesterday’s announcement of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. I don’t think my unease was irrational given Trump’s already proven track record of nominating candidates to various cabinet positions who are either demonstrably unqualified, clearly bent on dismantling the institutions they are being appointed to serve, or both. But I breathed a sigh of relief when Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch was announced. A noted conservative jurist, member of the Federalist Society, and avowed fan of the late Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch would not have been a surprise as the nominee of any more mainstream Republican, but with Trump’s track record so far, the nomination of Senator Ted Cruz or even Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore was not outside the realm of possibility.
A quick poll of reactions from members of Congress was predictable. Many Republicans immediately hailed the selection of a solidly “conservative” selection in ways that made clear they knew little about the nominee, while many democrats were already vowing to fight to the death to block it, as Republicans had done last year with the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Almost instantaneously, I received an email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee asking me to donate money to help fight the “hyper-conservative” that Trump had just appointed. Thankfully, a few took a more measured approach, including Colorado Senator Michael Bennett, who congratulated his fellow Coloradan and said he looked forward to reviewing the nominee’s record, according to the Denver Post. Still, Democratic Senators are under pressure from progressives to move to block the nomination.
As a lifelong Democrat, I certainly do not support approval of the nominee without fully vetting him through the advise and consent process appropriate for a lifetime appointment of this magnitude. However, I do think it would be wrong to filibuster or boycott the confirmation process, for several reasons.
First, Judge Gorsuch appears eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. Although we hail from the same state, I don’t have the pleasure of knowing Judge Gorsuch personally, nor have I appeared before him. However, members of the Denver legal community whom I respect have unanimously praised his intelligence, legal acumen, fair-mindedness, lack of political agenda, and most notably–given the President who nominated him–his temperament. Even the most left-leaning lawyers who know or have appeared before him consider him qualified. Leading civil rights lawyer David Lane was quoted in an AP article authored by Nicholas Riccardi as saying:
He is a very, very smart man. His leanings are very conservative, but he’s qualified to be on the Supreme Court . . . . I don’t know that Judge Gorsuch has a political agenda and he is sincere and honest and believes what he writes.
One of Denver’s leading plaintiff’s-side immigration lawyers, Jeff Joseph, went further in a post on Facebook just after the selection was announced:
I have appeared before Judge Gorsuch in the 10th Circuit. I have lost every time. But…this is a really good pick. Unlike every other decision coming out of the administration this week, this pick shows real deliberation and vetting. Yes, I obviously would have liked someone more left leaning, but Gorsuch is a real jurist. He believes in separation of powers and will check abuse of government power. More importantly, he is against Chevron and Brand X deference. When statues are vague he will not be willing to cowtow to the agency interpretation. He believes, rightly, that it is the role of the court to fill in the gaps. Bravo. This is a smart choice.
Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, a democratic appointee who now heads the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, a non-profit think tank focusing on judicial independence and access to justice, was also quoted in Riccardi’s article as applauding Judge Gorsuch’s commitment to simplifying court procedure and making access to the courts more affordable and accessible.
Second, obstructionism on this nomination could be political suicide for Democrats. If we’ve learned anything from the outcome of the Presidential election, it’s that a large portion of America has completely lost faith in our Government institutions. In the face of any reasonable move by Trump, obstructionist behavior will not help endear Democrats to the voters they lost in the last election. And for those who would say that the nomination should be blocked as an act of retribution, get over it. Our candidate didn’t win, and the result of that is that the other party gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice. Republicans took a very big gamble in blocking Judge Garland’s nomination and got away with it, probably not because voters liked it, but because voters ended up being so fed up with the status quo that the decided to give the “drain the swamp” candidate a try. Democrats will not be so lucky here. We need to accept reality and take the high ground. At worst for Democrats, Gorsuch represents a return to the status quo on the Court before Justice Scalia’s unexpected death. At best, Justice Gorsuch may turn out to be an independent thinker who becomes a surprise champion for civil rights, among other positive judicial reforms. By all accounts, Judge Gorsuch is an independent thinker who admires Justice Scalia and shares his textualist philosophy but has a mind and unique judicial philosophy of his own. And, according to those who know him, he has one trait that Justice Scalia often lacked, a tactful and fair-minded judicial temperament.
Third, and most importantly to me, a nominee with Judge Gorsuch’s track record provides our best insurance against the threat of Trump authoritarianism. I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that in just one week, Trump’s nationalist agenda, false propaganda, attacks on the press, censorship, and bullying tactics have already created the most significant threat to our nation’s Constitutional foundations since Watergate, a sentiment already echoed even by at least one prominent conservative commentator. A review of his opinions makes clear that Judge Gorsuch is highly principled and a strong believer in the separation of powers and will not tolerate attempts by the executive branch to usurp or ignore legislative and judicial functions. The best example of this is his concurrence to his own majority opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, where he goes to great lengths in describing the dangers of excessive executive power. Judge Gorsuch also has a consistent track record in supporting the Bill of Rights, including checks on police power and government infringement and free exercise, regardless of religious affiliation. At a time where Trump’s administration threatens to rule by executive decree, stifle public dissent, and ignore judicial orders, I believe that above all else, we need a Supreme Court that will stand up the constitutional doctrine of strong separation of powers and has an unwavering respect for the Bill of Rights. Of course, as a textualist, there’s a good chance he disfavors the “penumbra” of rights implied by the Bill of Rights that would include a fundamental right to reproductive privacy, and I know this is a dealbreaker to many liberals. But again, we aren’t in a position to choose, and this only means that at worst, he will preserve the status quo on the Court. Given the alternatives that Trump could bring forward, I’ll take a Justice who will champion fundamental rights like free speech, freedom of the press, free expression, and freedom from unreasonable searches, seizures, and excessive force and whose antagonism to other fundamental rights like privacy, if he has antagonism at all, is based on a principled philosophy of limiting the Constitution to what the founders intended, rather than some religious, moral, or politically-motivated ideology.
Those who know me know I am no supporter of Trump or his agenda. But perhaps in making the selection of a respected jurist rather than a right-wing hack, he is extending the olive branch to tell America that will respect the judiciary and the rule of law. Or maybe he just didn’t bother to vet Judge Gorsuch enough to understand how antithetical his constitutional philosophy would be to Trump’s apparent efforts to ram through his policy agenda using unchecked executive power. Whatever the reason, block Judge Gorsuch, and you are likely to get a nominee who may be less principled in conservative jurisprudence, but who is also less principled in promoting the rule of law itself.
Posted in Commentary, Supreme Court Decisions | Tagged abortion, bill of rights, confirmation, congress, gorsuch, hobby lobby, judge gorsuch, merrick garland, neil gorsuch, nominee, privacy, right to privacy, senate, Supreme Court, tenth circuit, trump, u.s. supreme court, United States Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
One of my law partners, Todd Lebowitz, resident in BakerHostetler’s Cleveland office, has put together a fantastic new legal blog focusing on the hot topic of employee misclassification. The blog, launched this week, already has some fantastic content to help employers and practitioners navigate the tricky landscape of who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. Make sure to check it out!
I recently authored a practice tip for the ABA Consumer Litigation Committee website entitled Consumer Class Action Defense: A Checklist for the First 10 Days, highlighting some key things that class action defense counsel should do or consider within the first 10 days after a class action is filed. Audra Petrolle of The Rose Law Group in Phoenix authored a complementary practice tip for plaintiffs’ attorneys. Click the links below to see both practice tips.
I attended the National Institute on Class Actions in Las Vegas last week, and it was probably the best one yet, considering the powerhouse lineup of speakers and excellent topics. This year’s event also marked the 20th anniversary of the Institute, and the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the modern class action rule in 1966. I’ve tried to include a short summary of some of the highlights of each of the presentations below. For more on what you missed, click here for the full program brochure.
Class Actions 101, 201, and 301
As has become a tradition in recent years, the conference kicked off with Yoga, along with a series of class action training sessions for attorneys and judges new to the practice area. As in past years, the training portion of the program was led by class action expert Drew McGuinness and Program Chair Dan Karon, with help this year from Lauren Guth Barnes and E. Colin Thompson. In addition to the basic Class Actions 101 course and the advanced Class Actions 201 course, new this year was Class Actions 301, taught by Karon, which covered legal writing tips for class action lawyers.
“Viva Review!” The Past Year in Class-Action Action.
Instructors: Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., Professor Alexandra D. Lahav
The main program kicked off with what has become an annual tradition at the Institute. Class action scholars John Coffee and Alexandra Lahav gave their annual rundown on the key developments in the courts on class action issues over the past year and their predictions for where class actions are headed in the coming year. One highlight for me was Lahav’s summary of divergent rulings on the question of ascertainability, which continues to be an area of uncertainty and controversy in the lower courts.
“From Mirage to Immense.” The Genesis, Creation, and Evolution of Rule 23.
Host: Daniel R. Karon
Guest: Professor Arthur R. Miller
What better way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the modern formulation of Rule 23 than to hear the story of the 1966 amendment by someone who actually helped draft it. Titan of American civil procedure, Professor Arthur Miller, gave a colorful history of the development of Rule 23, including entertaining stories about how a small group of now-well-known attorneys and academics, including Miller, Ben Kaplan, Archibald Cox, and Charles Alan Wright, came together in the mid-1960s to develop the innovations that gave us the class action rule we know today. A highlight was the story of how Miller used a manual typewriter to memorialize what ultimately became 23(b)(3) while in the back seat of Kaplan’s car on a ferry ride to the Kaplans’ summer home in Martha’s Vineyard. A neighboring car mistook the sound of the typewriter as a sign that the boat was sinking.
“Winning Big or Crapping Out.” Class-Action Ethics from a Real-Life Perspective.
Host: Melissa H. Maxman
Guests: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter, Professor Joshua P. Davis, Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr.
This panel examined a series of hypotheticals raising ethics issues, specifically how the courts sometimes treat ethics issues differently when they arise in the class action context. Among the colorful examples was the situation in which a plaintiffs’ class action attorney has a consensual sexual relationship with a woman who he later discovers is an absent class member.
“A Winning Hand or a Flop?” After 50 Years, Are Class Actions Still Legit?
Host: E. Michelle Drake
Guests: Michelle K. Fischer, Professor Richard D. Freer, Patrick J. Ivie, Jocelyn Larkin
In this presentation, a diverse group of plaintiffs’ and defense attorneys, a public interest attorney, settlement administrator, and an academic discussed common criticisms of modern class actions and insights into future trends. I was particularly interested to hear the panelists views on the viability of claims-made settlements and the benefits and criticisms of using electronic and other non-traditional notice in settlement adminstration.
“Behind the Curtain.” Examining Class Actions from the In-House Perspective.
Host: Sabrina H. Strong
Guests: Jennifer Bechet, Karin F.R. Moore, Ken K. Patel, Robert E. Bailey
This presentation offered insights from a panel of in-house attorneys whose companies face class action lawsuits. I thought one of the key points, reinforced in different ways by several panelists and consistent with my own experience, is that the threat of class actions doesn’t ordinarily have a deterrent effect on corporate business practices because most companies aren’t looking to intentionally harm their customers.
“Pit Boss Powwow.” Exactly What Is the MDL Judge College and How Does It Work?
Host: Vincent J. Esades
Guests: Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein, Honorable Jack Zouhary, Honorable J. Frederick Motz Sure
A behind-the-scenes treat, this panel of federal judges offered insights into how judges are selected and trained to preside over multi-district litigation proceedings. I thought it was notable that in recent years, practitioners have been brought in to speak at the annual training program to offer a practitioner’s perspective about what works and what doesn’t in complex MDL proceedings.
“Hitting the Jackpot!” A One-on-One Class-Action Conversation with Judge Richard Posner.
Host: Daniel R. Karon
Guest: Honorable Richard A. Posner
In one of the highlights of the Institute this year (along with Professor Miller’s presentation), Judge Richard Posner sat down via teleconference for an interview with Dan Karon. Judge Posner’s remarks were filled with unique insights and a few zingers including his comment that class action settlements are “an invitation to shenanigans” where, in his view, the class is at the mercy of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and the Defendants interested in getting off as lightly as they can, so the judiciary has an important role in scrutinizing the terms. He also talked about his process for reaching a decision in a case. He considers the case as a problem to be solved in general terms, comes up with a practical solution to that problem that makes sense, and then evaluates whether there is anything in the law that “blocks” that solution. At one point he quipped, “I don’t get a lot out of Rule 23,” preferring instead to consider the Rules of Civil Procedure in general terms and reaching a holistic judgment.
“Small Wagers, Big Results.” How the Supreme Court’s Tyson Foods Decision Could Affect Your Practice.
Host: Andrew J. McGuinness
Guests: Honorable Terrence G. Berg, Eric Grannon, James Langenfeld, Ph.D., Paul Novak, Joseph M. Sellers
This panel presentation on expert witnesses and statistical sampling was highlighted by a mock oral argument of a class certification proceeding in which the plaintiff sought to introduce statistical sampling evidence in an antitrust case. The argument offered a practical way of evaluating how issues presented by the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyson Foods might play out in a context other than wage and hour employment litigation.
“Into the Stratosphere or Simply a Circus Circus?” After Fifty Years, What’s Class Actions’ Future?
Host: Fred B. Burnside
Guests: Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor Robert H. Klonoff, Arthur H. Bryant, William Donovan, Jr.
A fitting end to an outstanding program, this panel of top class action scholars and practitioners offered insights into the current state of class actions and what might be in store in the near future. Here are some highlights on the predictions offered by the panelists: 1) class actions are not going away; 2) the continued growth of mass commerce will continue to spawn class action litigation; 3) Justice Scalia’s death will have a significant impact on class action jurisprudence going forward and the judiciary is likely to get less friendly to defendants in the short-term; 4) technology will make a big difference for the better in managing class action litigation; 5) defendants will continue to come up with creative, far-reaching ways of limiting class actions; 6) plaintiffs’ attorneys will continue to bring class actions when a) they think they can make money and/or b) they think they will advance the public good; 7) there will be some good class actions and some horrible ones; 8) look out for states to pass new consumer protection laws similar to the New Jersey New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA); 9) the TCPA and all-natural litigation booms will continue in the near future; 10) The CFPB will broadly define consumer finance services; 11) more class actions will go to trial; 12) what happens with the enforceability of arbitration clauses will have a big impact on the viability of many categories of class actions in the future; 13) look for more class actions in the federal courts in New York state.
Posted in Class Action Trends, CLE Programs, legal ethics, rule 23 | Tagged 1966 amendments to rule 23, ABA, arbitration, cfpb, class action, class action ethics, class action jurisprudence, class action law, Class Action Trends, coffee, ethical, ethics, expert witness, in-house, institute, jpml, lahav, mdl, mdl judge college, miller, posner, rule 23, scalia, statistical sampling, tccwna, tyson foods, wright & miller | Leave a Comment »
Robinson & Cole Partner Wystan Ackerman, fellow class action blogger and friend of ClassActionBlawg.com, recently sent me a note about an exciting upcoming class action conference sponsored by DRI. The conference will be held in Washington D.C. on July 21-22, 2016 and features a top notch slate of speakers and two days worth of cutting-edge class action related content tailored to the defense bar. Click the link below for a program description and additional links to the registration site.
Price Waterhouse Coopers recently published an interesting study entitled Daubert challenges to financial experts, a yearly study of trends and outcomes, 2000–2015 (click the link to download a copy).
The study includes citations to recent opinions on the subject, along with practical insights from attorneys, including yours truly. It concludes with a variety of useful statistics on the outcomes of Daubert challenges to financial experts, including the types of cases in which the change is made, the types of experts excluded, the jurisdictions in which exclusion rates are higher or lower, and the reasons for exclusion, among other things. The study includes information on Daubert challenges in the class certification context that will no doubt prove useful in dealing with other types of experts as well as financial experts. Be sure to check it out!
Posted in Articles, Daubert-Experts, Securities Class Actions | Tagged class action, class action expert, class certification, daubert, expert testimony, price waterhouse coopers, pwc, statistics, study, white paper | Leave a Comment »