HLLI joined the American Civil Rights Project and the Manhattan Institute to support Coalition for TJ's petition for certiorari challenging Fairfax County School Board's race-based admissions scheme as a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
Forbes profiles the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and its director Theodore H. Frank. William Baldwin explains how class action settlements work, and why Ted “is not a popular figure in the litigation bar.”
HLLI opposed a settlement that would deliver most of its promised relief to the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a left-wing advocacy group, instead of class members. The district court agreed with HLLI and rejected the settlement.
Cook County Record: The panel vacated the award and remanded the request for legal fees, suggesting Durkin reappropriate the weight given to auction bids and Ninth Circuit litigation while also allowing him to re-evaluate Andren’s request to order additional discovery on the expert reports class counsel submitted to bolster their request.
“We’re grateful for the opinion, and hope it will ultimately result in the class getting more money,” said Ted Frank, an attorney for Andren as well as the director of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness.
Ted Frank, director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness, on Wednesday said they hoped the ruling "will ultimately result in the class getting more money."
The Seventh Circuit agreed with HLLI, vacating a $57 million attorneys’ fee award in the Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Theodore H. Frank, who argued the case remarked “this is an important decision that should help consumers win more money from large settlements, where plaintiffs’ attorneys enjoy economies of scale.”
HLLI represents its director, Theodore H. Frank, in objecting to a purported “$15 million settlement” that in fact delivers perhaps $2 million to class members, and earmarks $3.2 million for attorneys’ fees.
August 23 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Washington D.C. — On Monday, August 21, the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute fought back against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s unlawful attempts to discriminate against certain viewpoints and engineer social policy outside its statutory mandate with an amicus brief filed in the case CFPB v. Townstone Financial, Inc., pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. HLLI’s brief supports Townstone, a mortgage…
HLLI’s Seventh Circuit amicus brief asserts that CFPB’s application of Regulation B and ECOA violates the First Amendment because it stifles free expression and facilitates viewpoint discrimination. The complaint below represents an effort by CFPB to strong-arm “inclusive” social policy rather than root out invidious discrimination, which was Congress’s intent when it passed ECOA.
