Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Reforming Multidistrict Litigation

  • Elizabeth Chamblee Burch
  • Book:
    Mass Tort Deals
    Published online:
    16 May 2019
    Print publication:
    16 May 2019, pp 167-213

  • Summary

    Our system needs a makeover, and this chapter uses basic economic and social principles as the bedrock of reform. It builds opportunities for dissent and competition into the fabric of multidistrict proceedings and incentivizes lawyers to use them. But doing so relies on judges. Educating judges and encouraging them to select leaders using a competitive process, tying leaders’ fees to the benefits they confer on plaintiffs, opening the courthouse doors to hear about those benefits (or not) directly from the plaintiffs, and remanding those litigants who don’t want to settle can allow the vibrant rivalries within the plaintiffs’ bar to see to it that dissent and competition flourish. As attorneys object and compete, they are likely to divulge new information, thereby equipping judges with pieces of the puzzle that they currently lack. In short, this chapter explains how arming judges with procedures that better align plaintiffs’ attorneys’ self-interest with their clients’ best interest equips courts to hold parties accountable even without legislation or rulemaking.