At Jotwell, Allan Erbsen discusses a new article by Edward Chang, "When 10 Trials Are Better Than 1000: An Evidentiary Perspective on Trial Sampling, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 955 (2012).
« British regulators shut down law firm | Main | Politics within the DOJ - "Holder Encouraged Removal of Bush-Era Voting Section Chief, IG Report Found" »
The comments to this entry are closed.
While sampling trials make a lot of sense, the reality of MR 1.2 and MR 1.8(g) entirely prohibits aggregate settlements or waivers of individual decisional rights. Two of my recent Moral Compass columns address the problems with these issues.
See http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202580438284 on December 7, 2012,
and http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202581404563 on December 14, 2012.
That doesn't mean that trial sampling can't work, and it may be, carefully done, one of the most viable solutions.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Zitrin | March 13, 2013 at 02:16 PM