The results of a survey undertaken for the Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, in which the attitudes of federal judges regarding appellate oral argument and opinion-writing practices were explored. The author concludes that judges are more satisfied with truncated procedures in the appellate courts than are lawyers; lawyers would opt for more judges and courts to ease the burden on court dockets.

This article presents a post-Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) discussion and analysis of data presented previously in An Empirical Examination of Attorneys' Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation (FJC 2005). Data originated from a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 closed class action cases. New discussion centers on the assumptions underlying CAFA about differences in federal and state court treatment of class actions. New data are presented on the types of cases (nature of suit) and the state of filing for survey cases that were originally filed in state court. From 81 Notre Dame Law Review 591 (January 2006).

While considering a proposal to amend Fed. R. Civil P. 23 to create new certification standards that would apply only to settlement class actions, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules sought this empirical research from the Center to help it decide how to proceed. This report is the second phase. For the first phase see Effects of Amchem/Ortiz on the Filing of Federal Class Actions: Report to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (2002).

An analysis of federal and state statutes, decisions, and rules concerning the awarding or setting of attorneys' fees. The report focuses on four problem areas: valuation of legal services, division of fees among attorneys, contingent fee arrangements, and funding of public-interest litigation through fee awards.