Guttman, Buschner & Brooks

Staff

By

Webinar: Pretrial Advocacy

In Episode 22 of May the Record Reflect, Reuben Guttman and J.C. Lore discuss their new book, Pretrial Advocacy, and why modern litigation practices necessitate early, close attention from practitioners. They discuss the interplay of early discovery with the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure, how law schools are responding to “front-loaded” litigation that often results in fewer jury trials, why public interest law matters, and what’s exciting about pretrial.  

This seminar addresses the following:

3:37  The meaning of front-loaded cases
6:16  Effects of Iqbal, Twombly, and Daubert on law practice and teaching advocacy
10:15 Pretrial advocacy at law school
12:14 Is pretrial exciting? 
16:56 Settlement versus trial
18:21 Why trials are still important
23:09 Getting to know the rules
29:07 Social media evidence
36:20 What’s lost with settlement
38:22 Public interest practice
41:03 Signature signoff question

To listen to this seminar or to learn more visit https://www.nita.org/s/product/22-pretrial-advocacy-with-reuben-guttman-and-jc-lore/01t4W00000DaKRW

Pretrial Advocacy is the ideal textbook for law school clinics, law school  pretrial litigation courses, and practicing lawyers. Both practical and theoretical, it teaches litigation as a process informed by rules and cases, but also by strategic considerations. Its hands-on and accessible text makes it a perfect reference for learning skills and a continuing reference. (Available in print and e-book here.)

Learn more here.

By

Webinar: Litigating False Claims Act Cases

The False Act (FCA) is a statute allowing citizens to sue in the name of the government to recover monies owed because of fraud or “false claims.” FCA cases are filed under seal and not initially served on the Defendants; this gives government lawyers an opportunity to investigate the claims and determine whether to intervene and thus take responsibility for the action. In recent years there has been an expansive use of the statute and in many cases the government is leaving it to private counsel to pursue claims that are viable and substantial.

This seminar will address the following:

  • Investigating and preparing a case on the assumption it will be litigated
  • Pleadings issues that are germane to FCA cases
  • Addressing issues of materiality and presentment
  • Discovery and evidentiary concerns
  • The non-intervened government as a partner

To register or for more information visit https://www.nacle.com/CLE/Courses/Litigating-False-Claims-Act-Cases-1990

By

Webinar: Non-state actors and global environmental governance in China

Understanding China’s stance on environmental governance is more pressing than ever.  Not only is China the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, it plays a crucial role in global supply chains and also faces ongoing water and biodiversity challenges.

Non-state actors such as profit-making organisations and business associations have grown in number and legitimacy in the last decade. Yet their role in Chinese governance has attracted little attention, according to the authors of Non-state actors in China and global environmental governance.

Hear from the book’s editors – prominent governance, law and international relations scholars – and senior figures from two of the book’s case studies at this upcoming webinar.

For more information visit: https://www.monash.edu/business/events/non-state-actors-and-global-environmental-governance-in-china

By

GBB News: Mass. General pays $14.6 million to settle whistle-blower suit over concurrent surgeries

Boston Globe, February 18, 2022

Massachusetts General Hospital on Friday agreed to pay $14.6 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging it fraudulently billed government insurers for surgeries performed by trainees without proper oversight because supervising surgeons were working in another operating room.

The settlement marks the third time since 2019 that the renowned Harvard-affiliated teaching hospital agreed to pay millions of dollars to resolve a claim stemming from the controversial practice known as concurrent surgery, or double-booking, in which surgeons juggle two operations simultaneously. The three out-of-court settlements total $32.7 million.

The latest claim was brought by a former MGH anesthesiologist, Dr. Lisa Wollman, who alleged that at least five orthopedic surgeons regularly kept patients under anesthesia longer than medically necessary — sometimes more than an hour longer — because the doctors were working in two operating rooms. Wollman said she repeatedly witnessed and complained about the practice from 2010 to 2015, when she left MGH and filed a federal whistle-blower suit on behalf of the US and Massachusetts governments.

* * *

Her lawyer, Reuben Guttman, of the Washington, D.C., law firm Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, said Wollman’s suit will help set “a new standard of care in informed consent for overlapping surgeries.”

She sued under the False Claims Act, a federal law passed during the Civil War that enables a private citizen to bring a case on behalf of the federal government for fraud. She will receive about 25 to 30 percent of the settlement, Guttman said, and the rest will go to the federal and state governments.

Read more here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/18/business/mass-general-pays-146-million-settle-suit-it-defrauded-governments-by-leaving-surgeries-unsupervised-trainees/

By

Public-Private Litigation for Health

By Liza Vertinsky* & Reuben Guttman**

Public health litigation can be a powerful mechanism for addressing public health harms where alternative interventions have failed. It can draw public attention to corporate misconduct and create a public record of the actions taken and the harms done. In an ideal world, it could achieve compensation for past harms and incentivize deterrence of future misconduct. But the full public health potential of these lawsuits is rarely achieved, even when the suits are brought on behalf of federal, state, and local governments with the ostensible goal of protecting the health of the citizens. The increasing involvement of private attorneys in public litigation only adds to the challenges of using litigation to achieve public health goals.

While there are continuing debates over the desirability of litigation
partnerships between state attorneys general (AGs) and private counsel,
as a practical matter, the involvement of private law firms in public
litigation is unlikely to disappear any time soon. This Article fills a critical
gap in the literature on the privatization of public litigation by showing
why, despite their shortcomings, arrangements between state and private
lawyers have the potential to satisfy public health goals that might
otherwise remain out of reach. It provides a theory of legal research and
development to show why these arrangements are not only likely to persist
but are also most likely to occur in high-impact public health litigation.
This Article then examines how the incentives of both state AGs and
private law firms influence choices along the litigation pathway in ways
that may undermine the potential to achieve public health value. It
concludes by proposing a novel impact-based approach to public-private
litigation, providing a decision-making framework that AGs can adopt to
increase the role of public health objectives in the litigation process.

Download the full paper here. (PDF, 1 MB.)

____________________

*© 2021 Liza Vertinsky. Associate Professor, Emory Law School.
** © 2021 Reuben Guttman. Founding member of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC. This Article draws in part from Mr. Guttman’s decades of experience representing numerous whistleblowers under False Claims Acts in various states, working in partnership with state attorneys general.