As one who has been the “beneficiary” of several class actions, where I saw stocks in which I had invested lose 15-40% of their value, in exchange for which I received coupons for $5 off on the purchase of a 757 or a miniature submarine, I don’t see how anyone can say with a straight face, that the plaintiff bar is doing anything other than lining the pockets of its members

I expect Max to dissent – he’s a brave lawyer who accepts comments on his own blog – but only if you agree with him. He isn’t brave enough to admit when he’s wrong
——
Ron Miller said
“Yes, DEM, trial lawyers are in only for the money, as opposed to doctors, Indian chiefs, defense lawyers and plumbers. ”

I agree but at least doctors, plumbers and Indian chiefs don’t spout off pious nonsense about seeking justice for the victims

I have lots and lots of ideas in lots and lots of areas I don’t act on. I neither have the hours of the day nor the minions to execute more than a small fraction of my ideas. I can let that frustrate and paralyze me, or I can act on the ideas I find most fun and rewarding. I’ve discovered I’m happier in life when I’m doing things I like to do. I like being my own boss and master of my own schedule, like appellate work where I get to make only the arguments I believe are Platonically correct, and like preventing lawyers from ripping off their clients; I don’t like negotiating non-disclosure agreements and cold-calling strangers, asking people for favors, dealing with discovery disputes or junior associates with easily bruised egos, or being too busy to play video games. (Cf. Jonathan Rauch on introversion.) Someday a smart and honest plaintiffs’ lawyer will persuade me to trust him, sit down with me for ten hours, and make us both a lot of money. Max would apparently prefer to persuade me not to trust him by gratuitously insulting me and calling me a liar in the face of plenty of evidence I’m telling the truth.

Walter genuinely believes federal courts are a better forum for consumer plaintiffs.

Seriously.

Just drop the pretense: occasionally improving a settlement is an incidental benefit; by and large, you want to destroy class actions, but you claim to be “consumer advocates.”

Furthermore, I didn’t say that I don’t file class actions because they’re too risky. I said doing so would take time away from my highest and best use and from what I like to do most. If Max wants to negotiate a contingent referral rate with me and take on the responsibility of finding typical adequate class representatives, and agree not to ask court approval of a settlement process that violates CCAF principles, I’ll happily pass along multiple class- action ideas that are at of at least as high quality as ones I’ve seen resulting in settlements with double lodestar.

But in the process he admits my point: he’s not in the business of arguing for “expanding” class actions, and he thinks there are still “meritless” class actions out there. The only reasonable interpretation of these two arguments is that he wants to further restrict consumer rights; since he gives no arguments at all for when a class should be certified or liability should attach, the assumption has to be he thinks both should be abolished. Some “consumer advocate.”

He’s also admitted he’s never going to file a class action, while also bemoaning how class action work doesn’t pay well because it’s risky and the fees aren’t consistent with the work. You’re preaching to the choir, Ted: I don’t file them either, because they’re too risky and the fees are too low! You, however, think the fewer class actions, the better, regardless of merit; I fret when companies get away with fraud.

Next up is CATO. I’m dying to hear how forcing more class actions into federal court — the focus of their amicus brief — is somehow good for consumers.

I find life works best when we make broad generalizations about entire professions.

One could say the same about virtually every plaintiffs’ lawyer. Why can’t they be honest about what they want — fees, fees, and more fees? They want the “little guy” to have rights against the “big guy” so long as it greases the pockets of the trial bar. The “standing up for the little guy” shtick is tiresome already.