Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach

523 U.S. 26 (1998)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach

United States Supreme Court
523 U.S. 26 (1998)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Play video

Facts

The law firms Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach and Cotchett, Illston & Pitre (defendants) represented claimants in a lawsuit against American Continental Corporation and consulting firm Lexecon Inc. (plaintiff). The claimants accused Lexecon of providing inaccurate information about the financial condition of Lincoln Savings and Loan, American Continental’s subsidiary. Multiple lawsuits arising out of Lincoln’s failure were consolidated and transferred to Arizona federal court for pretrial proceedings before Judge Bilby. The parties reached a resolution under which the claimants voluntarily dismissed their claims against Lexecon. Lexecon then sued the two law firms in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging the prior claimants dismissed because the claims were meritless and no more than a vendetta. When Judge Bilby learned of Lexecon’s allegations, he issued an order describing his markedly different understanding of the parties’ resolution. Lexecon appealed Judge Bilby’s order to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, the two law firms filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate Lexecon’s lawsuit against them with the Lincoln Savings litigation still in pretrial proceedings in Arizona. Judge Bilby recused himself because of the order he wrote, but the panel transferred the case to Arizona assigned to another judge. Over a year later, Lexecon asked the Arizona federal court to transfer the case back to the panel to remand back to the Northern District of Illinois. The law firms opposed the motion as pretrial discovery was still underway and asked the Arizona federal court to “transfer” the case to itself for trial. The Arizona judge agreed with the law firms and Lexecon appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the self-assignment order, but the Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership