For The Defense, October 2010 - DRI Today

More documents

Recommendations

Info

C E L E B R AT I N G 5 0 Y E A R SDRI’s History in the ProfessionA Past (andFuture)Dedicatedto ProtectingYour InterestsBy R. Matthew CairnsWhen we think about DRI today or talk about it with colleagues andpotential members, what do we say? Of course we emphasize our goldstandardeducation programs, the opportunity to work with the country’sbest defense lawyers in one of our 29 substantive committees, andFor The Defense, a premier journal of cutting edgelegal articles. But what do we say about the foundationon which the modern DRI is built? What do weknow about the last 50 years and what do the next 50years hold for us?As the organization’s full name describes, DRIbegan as a think tank, an “institute” designed toaddress cutting edge issues confronting the defenseand insurance bars in the 1960s. Calls for a nationalsystem of no-fault liability led DRI to produce publicationsdesigned to retain and improve the adversaryjuryprocess of the tort liability system. Principles toimprove the system were outlined in Justice in CourtAfter the Accident (1968) and then applied to producean 11-point position paper, Responsible Reform—AProgram to Improve the Liability Reparation System(1969). Our action program had broad-based supportfrom the national defense bar as well as over 65 stateand local defense organizations and a host of industrygroups. Through speeches, publicity, articles, anddistribution of Responsible Reform to defense lawyers,national and state legislators, and others interested inthe no-fault debate, we successfully defeated the federaleffort and promoted reform state-by-state throughthe generation of model statutes and regulationsdrafted by our Legislative Committee. You use manyof those statutes every day in your current practices.The next decades saw DRI continue its fight againstno-fault insurance, particularly in the automobileinsurance field. But the organization also broadenedits national impact by taking on the product liabilityfield, issuing a “Products Liability Position Paper,”n R. Matthew Cairns is a shareholder-director of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell PC in Concord, New Hampshire, where he representsthe interests of individuals, insurers, manufacturers, transportation and other companies in diverse commercial, complexand traditional litigation matters in all state and federal courts and state agencies. Currently, DRI’s president- elect, Mr. Cairns willbecome the organization’s 48th president at the 2010 Annual Meeting later this month in San Diego.10 n For The Defense n October 2010
YEARS50 CELEBRATINGLEADERSHIP ■ EXCELLENCE ■ EDUCATIONwhich contained 13 proposals for legislativereform and sample statutes. The basicmessage espoused by DRI was that a showingof negligence or some other level offault must be required before a productmanufacturer, distributor, or retailer couldbe held liable for injury suffered by a productuser.Today’s medical malpractice crisisreally is not new, at least not to DRI. In the1970s, DRI was already concerned aboutan increase in claims, disproportionateverdicts and rising premiums, which weredriving doctors from their practices. In1975, DRI sponsored a conference thataddressed the crisis in medical malpracticeinsurance, opened a dialogue between theattending groups and developed an agreementto work toward reasonable solutionsfor the benefit of the public. The conferencewas followed by preparation of the “MedicalMalpractice Position Paper,” which proposedreforms in the area without radicalsurgery. A popular monograph, Defense ofMedical Malpractice Cases, was distributedto the membership.These types of tort reform efforts andthe education of our members did not gounnoticed by the plaintiffs’ bar, which continuedto press for changes favorable totheir clients, both in the legislatures andin the courtrooms. Their campaigns metwith some success. Filing of frivolous lawsuits,abuse of the discovery process, argumentsfor liability regardless of the absenceof fault, escalating damages awards andthe increasing popularity of punitive damagesawards all were on the rise. DRI didnot sit idle. Our organization championedthe cause of sensible reform, based on thebelief that the traditional justice systemstill provided the best method for citizensto resolve their legal disputes. In 1985, DRIalong with its sister organizations formedwhat we now know as Lawyers for Civil Justiceto work on justice reform at a nationallevel, and began ramping up its amicusprogram to help create precedent favorableto our clients and practices.Of course, no discussion of DRI’s historywould be complete without mention of theNational Foundation for Judicial Excellence(NFJE). This effort developed by then-DRIPresident Richard Boyette has been one ofthe most significant efforts by the defensebar in the last decade to level the playingfield. Through its balanced approach tojudicial education, the NFJE symposiumshave educated hundreds of state appellatecourt judges on cutting edge issues that weand they face every day. The long waitinglist to attend the annual symposium andthe post program evaluations make it clearthat judges are hungry for the informationthe NFJE provides, and we are seeing theresults in decisions across the country.What do the next 50 years hold for DRIand each of us? “Only time will tell” is acliché response, and one DRI is not following.We will continue to offer the best legaleducation in the market, though it willlikely take more varied forms as technologyexpands. We will continue to identifythe cutting edge issues facing our industryand jump head first into the debate toprotect your interests. We will continue toprovide opportunities for leadership developmentthrough our committees and boardof directors. We will continue to help youin your day-to-day practice through innovationslike DRI Today (www.dritoday.org)and our legal blog. And most importantly,we will continue to be the leading organizationof lawyers defending the interests ofbusinesses, individuals and insurers in anever- evolving civil litigation landscape athome and internationally.For The Defense n October 2010 n 11
Page 2: DRI—The Voiceof the Defense BarVo
Page 6 and 7: D R I N E W SMembers on the MoveThe
Page 8 and 9: A F F I L I AT E S I N A C T I O NA
Page 10 and 11: A F F I L I AT E S I N A C T I O N2
Page 14 and 15: D R U G A N D M E D I C A L D E V I
Page 31 and 32: physician cut a catheter connector
Page 33 and 34: and extensive. Riegel preemption co
Page 35 and 36: This requires a client and counsel
Page 37 and 38: and outside counsel: the success of
Page 39 and 40: ies, such as the types of data, how
Page 41 and 42: courts that have taken up whether t
Page 43 and 44: the drug continue to outweigh the r
Page 47 and 48: vidual issues and the class action
Page 49: class members either would not have
Page 58 and 59: G O V E R N M E N T E N F O R C E M
Page 60 and 61: G O V E R N M E N T E N F O R C E M
Page 62 and 63:
G O V E R N M E N T E N F O R C E M
Page 65 and 66:
• A history of corruption exists
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Sharp v. Next Entm’t Inc., 163 Ca
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
later cases have significantly narr
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
The Task Force helped to identify m
Page 79 and 80:
skype ®iChat ®video teleconferenc
Page 82 and 83:
T H I N K G L O B A L LYInternation
Page 84 and 85:
False Claims Act, from page 72gover
Page 86 and 87:
Identification, from page 26are usu
Page 88 and 89:
Carefully Craft Jury InstructionsDo
Page 90 and 91:
A D V O C AT E S A N D N E W M E M
Page 92:
My time is precious and my resource
show all

For The Defense, October 2010 - DRI Today

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?