Point of Law has been following the gigantic Dukes v. Wal-Mart litigation for years, and the recent Supreme Court argument certainly does nothing to lessen its importance for issues of class action certification, aggregate litigation, employment litigation, punitive damages, the use of statistical evidence by courts, and even the politicization of the judiciary. We have brought together a fascinating group of scholars and practitioners to discuss the case in this featured discussion, and are looking forward to it. In alphabetical order:
- Lester Brickman is a Manhattan Institute visiting scholar and a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. He is the author of the recently released Lawyer Barons.
- R. Matthew Cairns is a shareholder/director at Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell and the 2011 president of DRI.
- Jim Copland is the director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy.
- Richard Epstein is a Manhattan Institute visiting scholar and was appointed the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University School of Law in 2010. He is also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, where he was on the regular faculty until his retirement at the end of 2010.
- I'm Ted Frank, an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute, and the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness.
- Myriam Gilles is a a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.
- Russell Jackson is a partner at Skadden. His blog is Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts.
- Andrew Trask is counsel at McGuireWoods and the co-author of The Class Action Playbook. He blogs at Class Action Countermeasures.
We hope to have others join us as the discussion goes on. To start things off, let me point to Richard Epstein's essay on the case for the Hoover Institution, "Wal-Mart's Class Action Conundrum". What do others think?