Lester Brickman

Publications

• Civil RICO: An Effective Deterrent to Fraudulent Asbestos Litigation?
  40 CARDOZO L. REV. 2301 (2019) · Cardozo Law Review · 2019

• Use of Litigation Screenings in Mass Torts: A Formula for Fraud, The
  61 SMU L. REV. 1221 (2008) · SMU Law Review · 2008
• Disparities Between Asbestosis and Silicosis Claims Generated by Litigation Screenings and Clinical Studies
  29 CARDOZO L. REV. 513 (2007) · Cardozo Law Review · 2007
• On the Applicability of the Silica MDL Proceeding to Asbestos Litigation
  Connecticut Insurance Law Journal · 2006
• An Analysis of the Financial Impact of S. 852: The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005
  27 CARDOZO L. REV. 991 (2005) · Cardozo Law Review · 2005
• Ethical Issues in Asbestos Litigation
  33 HOFSTRA L. REV. (2005) · Hofstra Law Review · 2005
• A Rejoinder To The Rejoinder To On The Theory Class's Theories of Asbestos Litigation
  32 PEPP. L. REV. (2005) · Pepperdine Law Review · 2005
• The Market for Contingent Fee-Financed Tort Litigation: Is It Price Competitive?
  25 CARDOZO L. REV. 65 (2003) · Cardozo Law Review · 2003
• On the Theory Class's Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship and Reality?
  31 PEPP. L. REV. (2003) · Pepperdine Law Review · 2003
• Effective Hourly Rates of Contingency-Fee Lawyers: Competing Data and Non-Competitive Fees
  81 WASH. U. L. REV. 653 (2003) · Washington University Law Review · 2003
• Mandatory Fee Arbitration Under New York’s Matrimonial Rules
  3 CARDOZO J. CONFLICT RESOL. (2001) · Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution · 2001
• Lawyers' Ethics and Fiduciary Obligation in the Brave New World of Aggregative Litigation
  26 WM. & MARY ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV. 243 (2001) · William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review · 2001

• The Tobacco Litigation and Attorneys' Fees
  67 FORDHAM L. REV. 2827 (1999) · Fordham Law Review · 1999
• ABA Regulation of Contingency Fees: Money Talks, Ethics Walks
  65 FORDHAM L. REV. 247 (1996) · Fordham Law Review · 1996
• Contingency Fee Abuses, Ethical Mandates, and the Disciplinary System: The Case Against Case-by-Case Enforcement
  53 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1339 (1996) · Washington and Lee Law Review · 1996
• On the Relevance of the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence: Tort System Outcomes Are Principally Determined by Lawyers’ Rates of Return
  15 CARDOZO L. REV. 1755 (1994) · Cardozo Law Review · 1994
• Nonrefundable Retainers Revisited
  72 N. C. L. REV. 1 (1993) · North Carolina Law Review · 1993
• The Asbestos Claims Management Act of 1991: A Proposal to the United States Congress
  13 CARDOZO L. REV. 1891 (1992) · Cardozo Law Review · 1992
• The Asbestos Litigation Crisis: Is There a Need for an Administrative Alternative?
  13 CARDOZO L. REV. 1819 (1992) · Cardozo Law Review · 1992
• The Use of Advance Fee Attorney Retainer Agreements in Bankruptcy: Another Special Law for Lawyers
  43 S. C. L. REV. (1992) · South Carolina Law Review · 1992
• A Massachusetts Debacle: <i>Gagnon v. Shoblom</i>
  12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1417 (1991) · Cardozo Law Review · 1991

• The Advance Fee Payment Dilemma: Should Payments Be Deposited to the Client Trust Account or to the General Office Account?
  10 CARDOZO L. REV. 647 (1989) · Cardozo Law Review · 1989
• Dedication to Karl Krastin
  14 NOVA L. REV. (1989) · Nova Law Review · 1989
• Nonrefundable Retainers: Impermissible Under Fiduciary, Statutory and Contract Law
  57 FORDHAM L. REV. 149 (1988) · Fordham Law Review · 1988

• Legal Paraprofessionalism and Its Implications: A Bibliography
  24 VAND. L. REV. 1213 (1971) · Vanderbilt Law Review · 1971
• Expansion of the Lawyering Process through a New Delivery System: The Emergence and State of Legal Paraprofessionalism
  71 COLUM. L. REV. 1153 (1971) · Columbia Law Review · 1971