THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY
                                                 THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
                           THE U .S . CHAMBER INSTITUTE FOR LEGAL REFORM


                                                           Tuesday, June 22, 1999
                                                        U .S . Chamber of Commerce
                                                            1615 H Street, N . W .
                                                             Washington, D.C .

                                     SCHEDULE AND CONFIRMED SPEAKERS

            8 :00-9 :00 a .m . Continental Breakfast

            9 :00-9 :30 a .m . Welcome & Keynote Address
            9 :30-11 :30 a .m. Panel One: State Attorneys General and the Power to Change Law
                                  • Hon . John Ashcroft, U .S . Senate
                                   •       Hon . Scott Harshbarger, Former Massachusetts Attorney General
                                   •       Hon . William Pryor, Alabama Attorney General
                                   •       Hon . Elliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General
                                   •       Mr . Michael B . Wallace, Phelps Dunbar Marks Claverie & Sims
                                   •       Mr . Jeff Bimbaum, Fortune (Discussion Leader)

            11 :45 a .m .-2 :30 p .m. Luncheon and Panel Two : The Politics and Economics of
                                       Government-Sponsored Litigation
                                       • Hon . M . Jane Brady, Delaware Attorney General
                                       • Professor Lester Bnckman, Cardozo Law School
                                       • Hon . John Comyn, Texas Attorney General
                                       • Professor John Langbem, Yale Law School
                                       • Hon . Richard Thornburgh, Former 76t° U .S . Attorney General
                                       • Mr . Richard Scruggs, Scruggs, Millette, Lawson, Bozeman & Dent, P .A.
                                       • Mr. John Fund, The Wall Street Journal (Discussion Leader)

            2 :45-4 :45 p .m . Panel Three : Government-Sponsored Litigation-What's Next?
                                   • Professor Kelly Brownell, Yale University
                                   • Mr . John Coale, Castano Group
                                   • Professor Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
                                   • Ms . Anne Giddings, Kimball Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon
                                   • Mr . Jacob Sullum, Author, For Your Own Good
                                   • Mr . Dan Webb, Winston & Strawn
                                   • Mr . Walter Olson, Manhattan Institute (Discussion Leader)

     ~    5 :00-6 :00 p .m . Closing Reception

                                                       TOPIC DESCRIPTIONS

             Panel One : State Attorneys General and the Power to Change Law

             • Are the tobacco lawsuits and other cases involving novel theories of antitrust . trade regulation or product
                 liability law within the proper law enforcement authonty of the state attorneys general? Should they be?
             • Should attorneys general be pressing novel theories of tort liability? Who should decide whether to bnng
                 such suits-the attorney general, the governor, or the legislature?
             • To what extent should state and local money be promised to contingency fee attorneys representing the
                 governmental entities in the absence of a legislative appropriation permitting the use of such funds? What
                 other Constitutional issues are raised by independent state attorney general act i on i n advancing novel legal
                 theor,e .. in conjunction with the pnvate trial bai?

             Panel Two : The Politics and Economics of Government-Sponsored Litigation

             • What motivates attorneys general or other governmental officials to bring lawsuits against computer and
                 health care companies, Y2K consultants, tobacco companies or gun manufacturers? Are these "consumer"
                 cases driven by political aspirations?
             • Are the results of the 1998 elections any indication of whether the public in general approves or disapproves
                 of these suits? In particular, did candidates for office who were associated with the cigarette litigation-
                 most obviously, the plaintiff state attorneys general who were running for reelection or for higher office-
                 attempt to capitalize on their involvement in the cigarette litigation? If so, did the voters respond positively
                 or negatively?
             • What are the political contributions and fee arrangements of the private trial lawyers representing state or
                 local governments in various "state attorney general" litigation?
             • What incentives or disincentives do governors and state legislators have in resisting novel government-
                 sponsored litigation? To what extent does the potential for significant out-of-state, non-tax revenue affect
                 peoples' views toward such litigation?

             Panel Three : Government-Sponsored Litigation-What's Next?

             • Is the tobacco litigation unique as some suggest? Or, are other inaustries just as susceptible to state attomey
                 general and big-city lawsuits brought on behalf of other "subrogees?"
             • What developments are taking place in the world of antitrust and competition law? Is Microsoft sut genens?
                 Or are financial institutions and health care providers just as open to state attomey general scrutiny?
             • With a Y2K liability crisis on the horizon, what role will be played by state attorneys general? In a similar
                 vein, is litigation against the distilled spirits, firearms, and fast food industries far-fetched or just down the
             • How (if at all) do the current or anticipated cases mirror patterns such as 19'" century "railroad back" or 20'"
                 century "trauma-cancer" cases? Do these cases reflect our fears of new technology (Y2K, or cell-phone and
                 high-power transmitter cases), our anger at the early deaths of parents or loved ones (tobacco), our fear that
                 we are not safe on our streets (firearms), and a perception that people often can be the victims of the
                 vagaries of a-free market (Microsoft)? Are these suits performing some sort of therapeutic function, or are
                 they driven by consumer protection and compensation for harm?


To top