BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW//NONSGML Events Calendar v1.0//EN
X-WR-TIMEZONE:America/Chicago
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:US/Central
X-LIC-LOCATION:America/Chicago
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
DTSTART:19700308T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=2SU
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:19701101T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=11;BYDAY=1SU
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=US/Central:20190924T154500
DTEND;VALUE=DATE-TIME;TZID=US/Central:20190924T174500

DTSTAMP:20260530T163100Z
CREATED:20190820T214200Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190902T155900Z
UID:20190924T154500-48285@law.utexas.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium on Complex Litigation
DESCRIPTION:<p>"It's Good to Have the 'Haves' on Your Side: A Defense of Repeat Players in Multidistrict Litigation" (with Andrew D. Bradt) -- forthcoming Georgetown L. J. 2019</p>
  <p>ABSTRACT</p>
  <p>Repeat players in multidistrict litigation (MDL) get a bad rap. When thousands of cases from all over the country are consolidated for pretrial proceedings, it's no wonder that the judge assigned to manage the litigation picks experienced lawyers to lead the effort. But critics argue that the small group of elite lawyers who show up again and again in leadership positions on the plaintiffs’ side of MDLs can collude with each other and with repeat players on the defense side to restrict competition and shape the rules of the game to their advantage—all to the detriment of the one-shotter clients that they represent. Those criticisms have gotten louder as MDL has grown to make up more than one-third of the federal civil docket and encompass some of the nation’s largest controversies, such as the opioid epidemic, the BP oil spill, the NFL concussion litigation, and many defective product cases. In this Article, we challenge this narrative, drawing on Marc Galanter’s seminal explanation for why the haves” come out ahead in litigation. Although the risks they pose are real, we argue that repeat players add significant value when they represent one-shotter plaintiffs, and that value may be worth running the risks. We show how MDL’s unique structure—its formal commitment to individualism but
  functional operation as a tight aggregation—allows repeatplayer plaintiffs’ lawyers to “play for rules” more effectively than either the class action or traditional one-on-one litigation. And with potential reforms to MDL procedure on the agendas of both the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and Congress, we urge policymakers and scholars not to lose sight of the significant benefits to plaintiffs of having repeat players on their side.
  </p>\n\nIf you need an accommodation to participate in this event, please contact the event sponsor or the Texas Law Special Events Office at specialevents@law.utexas.edu no later than seven business days prior to the event. Speaker: Teddy Rave, G, University of Houston Law Center
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<p>"It's Good to Have the 'Haves' on Your Side: A Defense of Repeat Players in Multidistrict Litigation" (with Andrew D. Bradt) -- forthcoming Georgetown L. J. 2019</p>
  <p>ABSTRACT</p>
  <p>Repeat players in multidistrict litigation (MDL) get a bad rap. When thousands of cases from all over the country are consolidated for pretrial proceedings, it's no wonder that the judge assigned to manage the litigation picks experienced lawyers to lead the effort. But critics argue that the small group of elite lawyers who show up again and again in leadership positions on the plaintiffs’ side of MDLs can collude with each other and with repeat players on the defense side to restrict competition and shape the rules of the game to their advantage—all to the detriment of the one-shotter clients that they represent. Those criticisms have gotten louder as MDL has grown to make up more than one-third of the federal civil docket and encompass some of the nation’s largest controversies, such as the opioid epidemic, the BP oil spill, the NFL concussion litigation, and many defective product cases. In this Article, we challenge this narrative, drawing on Marc Galanter’s seminal explanation for why the haves” come out ahead in litigation. Although the risks they pose are real, we argue that repeat players add significant value when they represent one-shotter plaintiffs, and that value may be worth running the risks. We show how MDL’s unique structure—its formal commitment to individualism but
  functional operation as a tight aggregation—allows repeatplayer plaintiffs’ lawyers to “play for rules” more effectively than either the class action or traditional one-on-one litigation. And with potential reforms to MDL procedure on the agendas of both the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and Congress, we urge policymakers and scholars not to lose sight of the significant benefits to plaintiffs of having repeat players on their side.
  </p><p>If you need an accommodation to participate in this event, please contact the event
                                          event sponsor or the Texas Law Special Events Office at <a href="mailto:specialevents@law.utexas.edu">specialevents@law.utexas.edu</a> no later than seven business days prior to the event.</p> Speaker: Teddy Rave, G, University of Houston Law Center

LOCATION:JON 6.206 - Susman Academic Center, The Judge William W. and Margaret R. Kilgarlin Chambers
URL:http://law.utexas.edu/calendar/2019/09/24/48285/
CLASS:PUBLIC
STATUS:CONFIRMED

END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR