Follow POL on Twitter At Freakonomics, Daniel Hamermesh writes of discovering one reason why lawyers in a related set of large antitrust lawsuits use a multiplicity of experts rather than allowing one to reprise his work: "They said very simply: if the other side finds a mistake or problem in your work on one case, they can use it on all the other cases; so we like to diversify."
Compartmentalizing damage to one's experts
Related Entries:
- Preempro jackpot justice verdicts in Philadelphia
- Chesley experts in two cases drop testimony
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas Supreme Court finishes off Garza v. Merck
- "Win or lose, trial lawyers get millions in Vioxx fees"
- Dewey v. Volkswagen opening brief
- What the heck is going on in King County family court?
- Around the web, July 12
- Podcast on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- $322M verdict for phantom asbestosis
- Gameshow justice: Godwin v. Electrolux Home Prods.
- Ken Feinberg and the Kentucky fen-phen suit
- Around the web, February 5
- Around the web, January 31
- "It is hard to escape the conclusion that the MDL denied GSK intellectual due process of law."
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |
