A couple of times in recent weeks we have discussed pelvic mesh cases where a central issue was whether the cases were time-barred by a statute of limitations or repose. (See here and here.) There is a reason why this issue crops up persistently. The pelvic mesh litigation started off as a mass tort

Last Saturday was World Mental Health Day. We hope you celebrated by getting outdoors in the very pleasant weather typical of early October throughout this beautiful country. We hope you also spent a few moments taking stock of your own mental wellbeing. Lawyers do not conduct such a self-assessment nearly enough. We are focused on

Our ongoing tour of Famous Novels We Missed Along the Way has introduced us to some splendid prose. Thackeray and Trollope insert subtle judgments just beneath the surface of their narratives. They can teach us much about how to deliver an opening statement that is a powerful argument precisely because it does not sound like

Bexis has been an active member of the American Law Institute (“ALI”), particularly concerning the ALI’s ongoing projects involving the Third Restatement of Torts.  Thus, regular blog subscribers have read about his adventures attempting to dissuade the law professors who draft these projects from pursuing their natural biases towards always increasing liability (more liability =

On many occasions, we’ve remarked that in modern prescription medical product liability litigation MDLs, the main objective of both plaintiffs and their counsel is to file as many lawsuits as possible, and then to do the bare minimum possible to avoid dismissal.  The idea is to run up the numbers, make the defendants spend huge

Over the past seven weeks we have been sports-starved. Back episodes of The Great British Baking Show do not quite make up for missing the start of baseball season and the NBA and NHL playoffs. But two things have ridden in to the rescue: (1) The Last Dance, the ESPN ten-part documentary about the

When we were still (relatively) young lawyers, we defended Bendectin cases.  There was nothing wrong with Bendectin – the litigation produced Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on excluding bogus expert testimony, and numerous other decisions, state and federal, excluding “junk science.”  Nonetheless, Bendectin’s primary