The question of who belongs in a class action deserves a lot of think about it time. A good class definition may save class plaintiffs lots of trouble in winning certification of the class — a do-or-die event in the life of the class action.

A new ruling by the Second Circuit highlights that true fact. In re Petrobras Securities, No. 16-1914-cv (2d Cir. July 7, 2017).
Continue Reading

500781881410

Election results

Many voters believed that the major U.S. political parties offered them two disappointing choices for President this year.

Although their reasons for disparaging their options varied from voter to voter, a rough consensus emerged about the candidates’ relative riskiness. While one had served in public office for decades, the other had never done any government work. At least in terms of familiarity with the job, the first seemed safe, the other risky.

But in the Electoral College, the “safe” one lost, and the “risky” one prevailed.

Why?

You’ll have many thoughts on how to answer that question. You can find plenty of opinions anywhere you look.

But as a trial lawyer, I have a particular interest in one possible, if partial, explanation:

Does a cognitive tendency in our brains push us towards risk (or perhaps away from it) when we face a set of alternatives that we perceive as negative?
Continue Reading

imageThe Contingency will return to regular Monday posts on May 9.

The trial that has kept me busy getting ready for during the last several weeks settled last night.

A great deal has happened in other corners of the world of high stakes business disputes during the hiatus, and I look forward to jumping back

Blind JusticeSurvey says

Since January 1, 2007, I’ve surveyed decisions by the 13 U.S. courts of appeals almost every working day.

The experience has highlighted for me a range of quirks — from their highly variable websites to their peculiar schedules for releasing opinions to the small-bore or high-caliber of the disputes they decide to the great range of writing talent.

I’ve also learned that they vary a lot in their openness. That trait manifests itself most obviously in the seemingly mundane information they provide (or withhold) in the captions of their opinions about the cases they decide.

Today I finally took a look at how transparently these geographically, culturally, and philosophically diverse courts deal with facts that can aid people like you and me in assessing how well they do their jobs.

[See examples from all 13 of the courts at the end of this post.]


Continue Reading