ILNews

Maley: Updated series is valuable for practitioners

John Maley
February 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

maley-john-mugNew013013By John R. Maley

As the practice has moved from law-firm libraries to online research on laptops and iPads, there remains a place for comprehensive, in-depth and practical treatises and practice guides. Since 1998, Westlaw’s Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts has been just such a valuable resource, and it continues to include electronic materials on a CD that contains jury instructions, forms and checklists that are in the 11-volume printed set. The series is unique in that it is a collaborative effort between Westlaw and the ABA’s Section of Litigation, with all proceeds going to that section.

The first edition in 1998 had six comprehensive volumes, expanded to eight volumes in the second edition in 2005. The new third edition has grown to eleven volumes with 34 new chapters. Under the guidance of New York litigator Robert Haig, 251 different distinguished authors – including 22

maleybookrev022713

distinguished federal judges from the appellate and District courts – contributed to the series. One of the authors remains Indiana’s own Hon. William C. Lee, who penned the chapter on scheduling and pretrial conferences and orders.

Although there are other treatises addressing federal civil practice, none are written specifically for commercial litigation. Moreover, no other book gives integra

ted treatment to procedural and substantive law in areas frequently encountered by federal commercial litigators. Furthermore, the authors address practical perspectives and tips for plaintiff and defense alike for all stages of litigation, including trial.

For the young practitioner, the treatise is a tremendous starting point for virtually any procedural and substantive issue that crosses the desk. On the procedural front, for instance, topics addressed range from subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, venue, immunity, investigation, case evaluation, pleadings, discovery, motions practice, trial, appeals, and enforcement of judgments. Meanwhile, on the substantive front, the coverage is broad but in-depth, ranging from antitrust, securities, banking, consumer, employment, copyright, franchising, entertainment, environmental, energy, construction, patent, trademark, products, and false claims.

For the experienced litigator, the treatise is both a good refresher and ready-reference, as well as a fine starting point for supporting authority and research given the detailed footnotes with multiple citations (actually more than 40,000 cites).

As is evident from this third edition and the strength and depth of the organizations and authors involved, this was not a “one and done” effort. Instead, the treatise has been supplemented with pocket parts annually since its initial publication, so it stays current with changes in statutory amendments, rule changes, evolving case law, and evolutions in federal practice.

For lawyers or firms with federal commercial litigation practices, this series is worth serious consideration. The eleven volumes and CD sell for $1,351 from Westlaw.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis, focusing on litigation, employment, and appellate practice. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT