What's it like to work in Products Liability/Toxic Tort Practice Group Forum

[Anonymous User]

A junior here. I have an interview with a full-service firm's toxic tort/p. liability group. I don't have experience in these areas but have other complex lit skillz. What basic information should I know going in about the practice? This is a motion writing heavy practice group? Plz share your thoughts. Thank you.

[fxb3]

It can vary a lot depending on their type of clients (environmental vs. tobacco -- if that work even exists anymore vs. pharma vs. car industry). But, yes, it can be a writing-heavy practice. The motions tend to be consequential, like a Daubert motion in an MDL that completely guts the plaintiffs' theories in thousands of cases, or summary judgment in bellwether cases, or class certification briefs. To me it's a good combination of law and facts. The cases are very fact-dependent, but the law can sometimes be very nuanced and interesting and have interesting policy considerations. (E.g. whether it should still be true that a pharma manufacturer's duties run only to the doctor and not the patient even though the companies do so much direct-to-consumer marketing.) And the litigation really is "complex" in the sense that the value is driven by MDLs and class actions. That's good if you like it, but can also mean that a lot of people devote a lot of time to sheer case management. It can also be very expert-intensive, if you like that kind of thing.

One aspect that can be a pro- or a con- is that products liability does a lot of the "virtual law firm" stuff, where there are several law firms working the same case. At its best this can mean that you're at the firm that's working up trials rather than managing document review. At its worst it means, well, the opposite. And there are all the coordination problems that you would guess would be entailed by having 4 law firms work on the same case.

[Good Guy Gaud]

It's a toxic environment.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

[Anonymous User]

It can vary a lot depending on their type of clients (environmental vs. tobacco -- if that work even exists anymore vs. pharma vs. car industry). But, yes, it can be a writing-heavy practice. The motions tend to be consequential, like a Daubert motion in an MDL that completely guts the plaintiffs' theories in thousands of cases, or summary judgment in bellwether cases, or class certification briefs. To me it's a good combination of law and facts. The cases are very fact-dependent, but the law can sometimes be very nuanced and interesting and have interesting policy considerations. (E.g. whether it should still be true that a pharma manufacturer's duties run only to the doctor and not the patient even though the companies do so much direct-to-consumer marketing.) And the litigation really is "complex" in the sense that the value is driven by MDLs and class actions. That's good if you like it, but can also mean that a lot of people devote a lot of time to sheer case management. It can also be very expert-intensive, if you like that kind of thing.

One aspect that can be a pro- or a con- is that products liability does a lot of the "virtual law firm" stuff, where there are several law firms working the same case. At its best this can mean that you're at the firm that's working up trials rather than managing document review. At its worst it means, well, the opposite. And there are all the coordination problems that you would guess would be entailed by having 4 law firms work on the same case.

I appreciate your response!!