The American Bar Foundation (ABF), in collaboration with the UC Berkeley School of Law Civil Justice Research Initiative (CJRI), with additional support from the American Association for Justice (AAJ) Robert L. Habush Endowment, hosted the symposium Plaintiff-Side Litigation: Scholars and Practitioners in Dialogue. The event took place on March 7, 2025, at the Ivy Hotel in Chicago.
By bringing together practitioners and scholars, the symposium aimed to facilitate a sustained conversation on the history of plaintiff-side practice, and on the contributions of plaintiff-side practice to the legal profession and to society.
The CJRI at Berkeley Law works to identify and produce research on critical issues in the civil justice system. Research that explores the expansion of access to justice and remedies which could level the judicial playing field for litigants is of particular interest to the CJRI.
The AAJ Robert L. Habush Endowment seeks to support understanding and dialogue on civil justice and the right to trial by jury by supporting judicial and academic education programs, innovative scholarship and research, and public education.
The Changing Plaintiff’s Bar: History and Barriers to Inclusion
Following opening remarks by Mark Suchman (ABF), the conference began with a conversation between Erwin Chemerinsky (Berkeley Law) and Robert A. Clifford (Clifford Law), moderated by Anne Bloom (CJRI, Berkeley Law). Clifford and Chemerinsky reflected on their long friendship and the ways in which practitioners and scholars can collaborate and support each other’s work. They also considered how lawyers and practitioners can work together to defend against attacks on access on justice and free speech.
During the second panel of the day, attendees were introduced to the history of the plaintiff’s bar by Joanne Martin (American Bar Endowment) and Stephen Daniels (ABF), in a panel moderated by Stephan Landsman (DePaul College of Law). Emphasis was placed on conflicts between plaintiff’s attorneys and tort reformers, particularly from the 1960’s to the present. Martin and Daniels also discussed the roles legislation and judicial influence have played in shaping the plaintiff’s bar.
Navan Ward (Beasley Allen), in his presentation, reflected on data from the American Bar Association’s research on diversity in the legal practice. In the study Ward cited, white Americans were overrepresented in legal practice. Consequently, other racial groups, including African Americans, Hispanic and Latino/a Americans, and Asian Americans, were underrepresented in practice. Ward pointed to a “leaky pipeline” in legal education as a possible cause for these disparities. Ward highlighted that 370 law firms have signed the AAJ’s Member Firm Pledge to Act, which supports recruitment, retention, and promotion of minority trial lawyers in member firms.
Bryant Garth (ABF) and Herbert Kritzer (University of Minnesota Law School) explored history through Chicago Lawyers, a book on the legal profession by John P. Heinz and Edward Laumann. They discussed the book’s exploration of higher and lower “spheres” of influence in the legal profession and commented on the place of plaintiff’s lawyers within these hierarchies. The two also considered the future of the hierarchies organizing legal practice and education, speculating that powerful law schools will continue to grow in size and influence, possibly threatening the existence of smaller, less influential schools.
In a Q&A session, panelists and audience members discussed the extent to which the plaintiff’s bar is male dominated and considered the reasons for disparities between men and women in plaintiff’s practice. A history of plaintiff’s practice being historically led by men was one possible explanation; Ward highlighted issues with lack of access which could affect women’s success in the field. Lori Andrus, from the audience, highlighted the work AAJ has done to support women in leadership roles.
Building on the previous panel’s historical theme, the third panel of the conference, moderated by Brooke Coleman, focused on the impacts of legal retrenchment and tort reform. Michael W. McCann (University of Washington) connected the discussion to the impact of popular narratives—like the infamous McDonald’s coffee lawsuit—on negative public perceptions of plaintiff’s lawyers. Sarah Staszak (Princeton School of Public and International Affairs) explored the connection between a decline in civil suits going to trial and the rise of forced arbitration clauses, especially in employment contracts.
In the same session, Sean Farhang (Berkeley Law School) discussed the certification of class action lawsuits. Lori Andrus (AAJ) considered in part the potential impact of rising populist sentiment on plaintiff’s law, particularly when it comes to suits against large corporations, or issues surrounding children’s safety online and when using technology.
Plaintiff’s Law as a Tool for Social Justice
The panel that followed, moderated by Mario Barnes (UC Irvine School of Law) brought the connection between plaintiff’s law and social justice to the forefront. Sharon McGowan (Public Justice) discussed the impact of class action suits on social justice, highlighting the fact that the landmark case Brown v. Board was a class action case. Rosemary Rivas discussed her work on Reyes v. Chilton, a class action case which addressed a ballot certification process which discriminated against Hispanic and Latino/a voters in parts of Washington state. She also discussed a fellowship program at Gibbs Mura which supports law students with a diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
Timothy Lytton (Georgia State University Law School) discussed civil suits brought by victims of childhood sexual abuse by Catholic church officials. Lytton emphasized the role of litigation in bringing the abuse into greater public consciousness, and raised questions about how the value of civil litigation can be reframed to make it clear to the public that civil suits are not solely for the benefit of the plaintiffs directly involved in the suit, but also for the benefit society as a whole.
Robert L. Nelson (ABF, Northwestern University) and Laura Beth Nielsen (ABF, Northwestern University) discussed their research on sexual abuse by Catholic church officials. Nelson discussed Jim Cummins’ story and his litigation against the Catholic church in Dubuque, Iowa. Nielsen examined the qualities that organizations enabling abuse have in common and spoke to the power of telling the stories of civil litigants. In the Q&A that followed, audience members and panelists considered how public accountability and transparency could supplement monetary damages in certain kinds of civil suits.
The next session of the conference offered simultaneous discussions with smaller groups. One session focused on the civil jury and its changing role in civil justice; the other focused on aggregate litigation. In both sessions, audiences and panelists considered the future of the profession and various pressures and changes that are reshaping the plaintiff’s bar today.
In the civil jury–focused session, moderated by Nancy S. Marder (Chicago-Kent College of Law), Valerie P. Hans (Cornell Law) discussed the vanishing civil jury trial. Shari Diamond (ABF, Northwestern Law) presented on her research about the presentation of scientific evidence to juries, raising questions about how scientific literacy could be improved for jurors, judges, and attorneys alike.
Building on these ideas, Richard Lorren Jolly (Southwestern Law) and Bhavani K. Raveendran (Romanucci & Blandin) addressed obstacles facing civil juries. Jolly explored ideas like competency exceptions which historically kept women and people of color from participating in juries, and which today prevent people with certain disabilities from taking part.
Raveendran explored, among other things, what it can mean to be client-focused as a plaintiff’s attorney, and how prioritizing client goals can sometimes mean settling rather than going to trial. Raveendran also reflected on the connections between plaintiff’s law and social justice. “I am so proud to represent injured people,” Raveendran said, “and I used to think that I was doing it because I love the constitution. I love the constitution because it protects people.”
Looking to the Future of Plaintiff’s Law
The aggregate litigation panel featured a lively discussion between Andrew Bradt (CJRI, Berkeley Law), Myriam Gilles (Cardozo Law), and Amy Keller (DiCello Levitt), moderated by Jocelyn D. Larkin (The Impact Fund). Myriam Gilles began by presenting on the case Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, which is set to be argued before the Supreme Court in April 2025. Gilles discussed historical efforts to attack class actions, and the potential impact of the Laboratory Corporation case, which questions if a class can be certified if not all members of the proposed class have an Article III injury.
Following Gilles’s presentation, the panelists discussed the case, precedents in this area of law, and complex mass litigation with each other and the audience. The conversation exposed the complex challenges facing aggregate litigation and emphasized the significant role this form of litigation plays in defending the rights of injured people.
The final session of the day was a panel intended to facilitate connections between academics and practitioners. In a conversation led by Laura Beth Nielsen and Amy Keller, practitioners shared their ideas for research which could support their work. Academics highlighted their own work and discussed the research ideas proposed by practitioners.
In closing, Mark Suchman and Anne Bloom reinforced the importance of collaboration between scholars and practitioners and looked forward to building on the ideas that were shared at the conference.
###
About the American Bar Foundation
The American Bar Foundation (ABF) is the world’s leading research institute for the empirical and interdisciplinary study of law. The ABF seeks to expand knowledge and advance justice through innovative, interdisciplinary, and rigorous empirical research on law, legal processes, and legal institutions. To further this mission the ABF will produce timely, cutting-edge research of the highest quality to inform and guide the legal profession, the academy, and society in the United States and internationally. The ABF’s primary funding is provided by the American Bar Endowment and the Fellows of The American Bar Foundation.