Bruce Bennett was an Arkansas politician best known for serving as the state Attorney General from 1957 to 1960, and then again from 1963 to 1966. During his first term as Attorney General, Bruce Bennett was associated with the passage of a series of bills he authored in 1958 with the specific purpose of making it impossible for the civil rights organization the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to operate in the state. Among other things, the bills authored by Bruce Bennett specifically forbid the NAACP from maintaining attorneys in the state and compelled the organization to give the state a complete list of its members. Similar laws passed by the state of Alabama were later deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the 1958 case of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People V. Alabama, effectively nullifying his legislative work.

After an unsuccessful run for state governor in 1960, Bruce Bennett returned to the office of the Attorney General in 1963. During this time, he was involved in the creation of the Arkansas Loan and Thrift company. The company was founded by businessman Ernest A. Bartlett Jr., who had come into possession of a building and loan charter whose terms outdated current state laws governing the regulation of savings and loans businesses. The draft for this company's charter was completed in the office of Bruce Bennett, who became a shareholder in the business.

Following the foundation of the company, advertising was successful in soliciting investments from churches and private citizens. The company promised a higher rate of return than could be legally granted by savings and loans institutions, investing the funds into unsafe products while earning roughly $4 million. During this time, the company attracted the attention of the state Savings and Loan Commission. To determine whether the company could be regulated and investigated, the state's savings and loan regulator, Clint Jones, sent Bruce Bennett a series of letter inquiring whether the company could be regulated as a savings and loan association, bank, or insurance company. Bruce Bennett replied in the negative to every query without disclosing his role in the company.

The Arkansas Loan and Thrift company declared bankruptcy in 1967, prompting a renewed investigation, this time from the Federal Savings and Loan Commission. Subsequent legal investigation revealed the role of Bruce Bennett in protecting the company from investigation and regulation. In 1969, he was indicted on charges including securities violations, postal fraud, and wire fraud. However, in the subsequent handling of the case, the presiding federal judge, who was a friend of Bruce Bennett's,  severed the case against him from that of other defendants being charged. Due to his throat cancer, Bruce Bennett was able to receive a number of continuances delaying the start of his trial. Bruce Bennett died in 1979 without ever having been prosecuted for his role in the Arkansas Loan and Thrift Company.

Jan Schlichtmann

Best known for his work on a lawsuit which served as the basis for a best-selling non-fiction book, attorney Jan Schlichtmann is a currently operating attorney best known for his work on the case Anderson v. Cryovac. Though he lost the case, the publicity attendant to the work resulted in more stringent Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The case was instigated in the early 1980s, when Jan Schlichtmann met with representatives of the town of Woburn, Massachusetts. In 1979, the state's Department of Environmental Quality tested the town's water wells and determined that two out of eight had been contaminated by trichlorethylene, a chemical which had caused cancer in animals in laboratory tests. Trichlorethylene was found to be present in levels five times higher than safe, and the wells were immediately closed. A 1982 investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency traced the contamination to dumping performed at factory grounds used by two companies, the chemical plant of W.R. Grace and the John J. Riley Tannery

Following the closing of the wells, six children who all lived on the same block of Waltham were diagnosed with leukemia. Jan Schlichtmann and his partners agreed to represent the eight families in question in a lawsuit against the two companies. In part due to the arguments presented by lead defense counselor Jerome Facher, the presiding judge agreed to have the trial take place in two parts.

In the first part of the trial, Jan Schlichtmann and his partners were required to demonstrate that W.R. Grace and the John J. Riley Tannery were responsible for the contamination of the wells in question. After 79 days of trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty regarding W.R. Grace but not for the John J. Riley Tannery. At this point, the trial continued to its second part, in which Jan Schlichtmann was required to demonstrate that the contamination was the direct cause of the development of leukemia.

At this point, Jan Schlichtmann and his partners had incurred a great deal of debt, in part because of the expenses necessitated to commission studies proving a link between trichlorethylene and leukemia development. Unable to proceed with the case fiscally, Jan Schlichtmann and his partners negotiated a $8 million settlement with W.R. Grace.

After the close of the trial, an in-house report produced by the Tannery emerged proving that the company knew that it had dumped waste chemicals in an illegal fashion, leading to contamination. Jan Schlichtmann therefore appealed the ruling regarding the tannery on the grounds that their attorney had knowingly suppressed this evidence. The case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which agreed with Jan Schlichtmann and ordered the original presiding judge to reconsider the case.

Ultimately, the presiding judge agreed with the claim of withholding evidence. However, in his opinion the judge ruled that Jan Schlichtmann had launched a frivolous lawsuit when filing without this evidence and ruled against him.

John Burris

John Burris is a prominent California-based attorney associated with his work in many cases involving police brutality and discrimination against African-Americans. One of his earliest prominent cases involved the defense of rapper Tupac Shakur, who was arrested by police on jaywalking charges. Shakur alleged that the arresting officers in Oakland had beat him and filed a 1991 lawsuit seeking $10 million damages. John Burris successfully obtained a $42,000 settlement.

In 1992, John Burris became involved in the case of Rodney King, whose beating by Los Angeles Police Department officers in 1991 caused riots. King had initially hired Steven Lerman after his beating, but dispensed with his services in October 1992 in favor of retaining Milton Grimes. Grimes had John Burris and fellow attorney Federico Sayre assist him in preparation of the case. Grimes, John Burris and Sayre were dismissed in August of 1994.

In 1996, Rodney King filed suit against John Burris, Lerman and Sayre. The suit alleged that John Burris and other attorneys had fraudulently charged him for work done on the suit, thereby lessening the size of settlement through fraud. His lawsuit was rejected in appeals court, which concluded that the one year statute of limitations had elapsed by the time King took this legal action.

In 1998, John Burris acted as defense attorney for professional basketball player Latrell Sprewell, who had been charged with reckless driving for forcing another driver off the road before hitting another car, injuring two people. Though he could have been sentenced to six months in prison, a plea bargain was arranged of three months of home detention in addition to two years of probation and a small fine.

From 2000 to 2003, John Burris was a leading counselor representing 119 plaintiffs in a federal district lawsuit filed against the city of Oakland. The

combined civil rights lawsuits concerned four Oakland police officers who were alleged to have committed a number of offenses, including beating prisoners, unlawful detentions, and planting evidence. In 2003, the city of Oakland agreed to a settlement totaling $10.9 million to be divided among the 119 plaintiffs.

In 2009, John Burris acted as leading co-counsel representing the relatives of Oscar Grant, who was shot to death by Bay Area police on New Year's Day. In the incident, Grant had been restrained and was lying on the ground, waiting to be handcuffed, when he was allegedly shot once in the back by officer Johannes Mehserle. As a result, the Bay Area Rapid Transit authority agreed to pay a settlement totaling roughly $5.1 million, including interest accrued.

In addition to his high-profile successes, John Burris has occasionally been the subject of legal action. In 1996, his license to practice in California was suspended for 30 days due to misleading solicitations he had sent to those who had survived natural disasters. John Burris disclaimed responsibility, saying it was done by employees without his knowledge.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky is a prominent legal scholar specializing in issues of constitutional law. Though he has acted as a lawyer in several capacities, Erwin Chemerinsky is better known for his public commentary on a number of prominent issues.

One of his prominent public moments came in 2000, when he was asked by the Los Angeles Police Department to analyze the results of a Board of Inquiry investigation into the so-called "Rampart Scandal." This refers to a series of incidents involving corrupt LAPD officers from 1997 to 2000. The first of these was the fatal March 1997 shooting of an off-duty LAPD officer, Kevin Gaines, by another undercover officer, Frank Lyga. Lyga claimed that Gaines had threatened him and he had acted in self-defense.

The next incident took place in November 1997, when a bank robbery was linked to police officer David Mack. In February 1998, officer Brian Hewitt allegedly beat a hand-cuffed gang member, resulting in internal injuries. Hewitt was a member of the CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums) division, part of the Rampart department. In March 1998, another officer in this division, Rafael Perez, was linked with the disappearance of more than six pounds of cocaine confiscated as police evidence. In September 1999, Perez agreed to a plea bargain. Under the terms of this plea bargain, he spent nine months detailing his knowledge of corruption in the Rampart department, implicating approximately 70 of his fellow officers in misconduct.

In response to these revelations, police chief Bernard Parks convened a Board of Inquiry to investigate the Rampart unit. Their report was issued in March 2000 and blamed poor management practices. The CRASH unit was disbanded that same month.

In September 2000, Erwin Chemerinsky completed his independent analysis of the Board of Inquiry's report. This report concluded that their report had deliberately understated and underestimated problems of corruption within the LAPD force, failed to firmly state the problems of the police force's internal culture, did not adequately consider how to institute internal reforms, did not adequately address LAPD procedures for handling cases in which officers made use of excessive force, failed to adequately consider malfunctioning internal discipline procedures, and did acknowledge problems endemic to the entire criminal justice system of the city of Los Angeles. That same month, the United States Department of Justice was given the authority by the Los Angeles City Council to supervise reforms within the LAPD for the following five years.

Following the release of this analysis by Erwin Chemerinsky, another independent review panel issued their report in November 2000. This report supported his findings, noting that the LAPD compromised its own internal investigations of disciplinary violations and was viewed by the communities it patrolled as violent and unresponsive or actively hostile.

In 2009, Erwin Chemerinsky assumed the position of founding dean at the newly formed school of law at the University of California at Irvine.