Over three years ago (an eon in blogging time) we urged our readers – particularly those of you who are in-house – to consider joining the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”).  We believed then, and continue to believe, that PLAC membership helps pharmaceutical and medical device defendants litigate complex matters smarter and more efficiently, because

This post is mostly directed to our in-house readership, although you out-house folks can feel free to pass along what we say to your clients.

Our point today is to urge drug/device companies who aren’t members of the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”) to join.  Annual membership in PLAC costs $6500, which is a pittance compared to the amount of a single verdict – heck, a single settlement – in a significant product case.  It’s less than a third of the cost that PLAC pays (and it only pays bargain-basement prices to start with) to file a single brief.

PLAC is not an industry group, it’s a topical group, and its topic is product liability.  Its primary function is to file amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in appellate cases that are likely to have a significant impact on product liability litigation.  Those are mostly (but not always) product liability cases.

Bexis has sat on PLAC’s nationwide case selection committee for over a decade now.  He knows what PLAC does and how it helps his clients – and similarly situated product liability defendants everywhere.

How would your company’s litigation be without the learned intermediary rule?  In recent years, PLAC has filed amicus briefs supporting adoption of the rule in the Supreme Courts of Kentucky, Georgia, Connecticut, and Texas (at least).  Unfortunately, nobody told PLAC about West Virginia.

How would your company’s litigation be without Daubert?  PLAC helped invent Daubert, and because it’s a topic group, not an interest group, it’s been in all the Supreme Court’s Daubert decisions – whether the product is a drug, or a tire, or something else.  PLAC has even filed in criminal cases (the validity of drug-sniffing dog evidence), where significant Daubert issues were raised.  PLAC has been in state court expert testimony cases, too – fighting the good fight – whether the product is benzene . . . or Doritos.


Continue Reading

Anyone who reads this blog knows that we do drugs.

But we do civil rights, too (at least in certain contexts, where the representations don’t create positional conflicts for our firms).

Herrmann recently filed an amicus curiae brief (link here) on behalf of Black Cops Against Police Brutality in the U.S. Supreme Court

No law this time. This is a purely practical post.

We’ve done quite a few posts that have presented the legal arguments we’ve found in various defense-side amicus briefs – mostly in the “FDA Cubed” cases (Riegel, Kent, and twice in Levine) that have so serendipitously (for us) happened to coincide

Isn’t it funny? The blogosphere has already beaten Riegel v. Medtronic to a pulp (we joined in the fun here, here, and here) and is moving on to other subjects, and the first law review article analyzing the case may not appear for months.

What does that say about the future of

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the FDA, has recently filed amicus briefs in both the Riegel v. Medtronic and Warner-Lambert v. Kent (formerly Desiano) Supreme Court preemption cases. We’re doing a separate post on Riegel, but we did this one first because it’s more in the nature of “breaking news” – it

The Supreme Court briefing is now complete in Riegel v. Medtronic. For preemption wonks like us, that’s sort of like being a kid in a candy store – so we’ve taken a good look at what have to be the best and most state of the art defense preemption arguments around for those of