Lawyer abuse in class action settlements is a widely recognized problem. One approach to lawyer abuse in class actions has received insufficient attention: suing the lawyers. Lawyers involved in class actions may engage in conduct that constitutes a civil or criminal wrong under state or federal law. The difference between these lawyers and other lawyers is that judges approve class action settlements after making findings on the adequacy of class counsel, the lack of collusion between class counsel and defendants, and the fairness of the settlement terms, including lawyers' fees. We argue that this judicial approval does not, and should not, immunize lawyer misconduct from the reach of state tort law, consumer protection law, criminal law, or state or federal antitrust law. Class action lawyers seem to assume that judicial approval cloaks their settlements in protection from these actions. We argue that this assumption is erroneous. First, collateral estoppel does not apply to bar suits aimed at lawyer misconduct because there is no full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues in the fairness hearing. Second, the doctrines that exempt state action, federal regulatory activity, and petitioning the government from the antitrust laws do not apply to the conduct of class action lawyers in negotiating a settlement or to the terms of the settlement approved by the court. We provide case examples to demonstrate the types of actions that could be brought against class action lawyers.
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
On January 1, 2022, the most radical change to the American jury in at least thirty-five years occurred in Arizona: peremptory strikes, long a feature...
It has long been said that the common law "works itself pure" But in the law of torts, not always. This Article reveals and analyzes the...
The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice...
How should judges decide hard cases involving rights conflicts? Standard debates about this question are usually framed in jurisprudential terms...
Long lines inside Bodo’s Bagels, congestion on Emmet Street and a seemingly endless stream of runners and scooters zooming past your car in early...
Berryessa et al. (2022) consider how prior experience as a criminal prosecutor may influence judicial behaviour, but their concerns about prior...
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
The lawyer-client relationship is pivotal in providing access to courts. This paper presents results from a large-scale field experiment exploring how...
The question whether the term “set aside” in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes a federal court to vacate a rule universally—as opposed...
Contract law has one overarching goal: to advance the legitimate interests of the contracting parties. For the most part, scholars, judges, and...
Do legal concepts alter how we understand the past and present? The jurisprudence of race suggests that they do. For several decades, federal courts...
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to...
Public nuisance has lived many lives. A centuries-old doctrine defined as an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, it is...