A.  "Outrageous" punitive damages awards.

                1.  Hypothetical examples.

                2.  Real-world examples.

        B.  What needs reforming?
 

  1.   Social perceptions.

                2.   Punitive damages.

II.  Punitive Damages Caps.

        A.  The nature and functions of Punitive Damages.

  1.  An appropriate remedy?

  2.  Is there a tort litigation crisis?

   a.   Statistical data.

   b.   Fairness?  Consistency.

    i.   Wide range of award amounts.

    ii.  Are juries out of control?

        B.  Punitive damages and tort reform.

                1.   Supreme Court decisions regarding
                     punitive damages / power to regulate.

                2.   Federal (congressional)
       attempts/proposals for tort
                     reform.

                        a.   Commom Sense Tort Reform of
                      1995 (Contract with America)

                3. State attempts at tort reform.

                        a.   Florida

   c.   Nebraska

   d.   North Dakota

III.  Punitive Damage Caps and its effect on access to
      attorneys and the justice system.

        A.  The use of contingency fee arrangements in tort
            litigation.

  1.  Public Policy.

                 a.   freedom to contract.

                 b.   promoting progressive litigation.

        B.  How lawyers decide the fee arrangement for new
            clients/cases.

  1.   Gambling?

   a.   Risk involved / alignment of interests.

   b.   Do contingency fee arrangements correlate to work performed?

   c.   Do contingency fee arrangements correlate with risk of case?

  2.   Rule 11 / Frivolous lawsuits.

   a.   ABA Standards / Ethical conduct and considerations.

        C.  Does the contingency fee give the disadvantaged
            access to the legal system?

  1.   Tort reform and its effect on access to the legal
                     system; conflicting views

          a.  Advocacy groups / Politics.

    i.   National Association of Trial Lawyers and others.

    ii.  Tort Reform Advocates.

                2.   Motivations

                3.   Deconstruction.

IV.  Conclusions / proposals for change.