Q&A: Why Class Action Reform Bill Isn't as Bad as It Seems

, The National Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

The Chicago plaintiffs lawyer argues that the bill, which has been called a "death knell" for class actions, would instead spur unnecessary litigation and increase defense costs.

This premium content is reserved for National Law Journal subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    Readers like me will wait patiently for Ms. Bronstad to do a Q&A with someone who supports the bill. Meanwhile, let this layman respond laughingly to Mr. Edelson‘s misleading assertion that, quote: People have a right to choose their lawyer. He presumably says this with a straight face while knowing full well that it is conniving, self-interested class-action lawyers who choose their lead plaintiffs, not the other way around. (Remember Bill Lerach‘s infamous boast to a journalist -- before he went to prison -- that his securities class-action mill functioned so efficiently because it didn‘t need clients? Lerach‘s racket effectively kept lead plaintiffs on retainer.) Now thousands of consumer class actions are filed every year in state and federal courts, and the overwhelming majority of them are wholly concocted by lawyers who then call old college roommates or neighbors to ask if they‘ll serve as lead plaintiffs, offering instructions about what product(s) to buy and receipts to keep. Many state consumer protection acts have thus devolved into shameless plaintiff lawyer enrichment acts, collectively driving many billions of dollars in annual litigation costs, all of which are ultimately passed on to those supposedly protected consumers in the form of higher prices.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202779461655

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.