“What made you think I wanted 53 firms churning on this case?”

“A federal judge in California last week criticized two lawyers for bringing an additional 49 law firms into a data-breach case, raising to 53 the total number of firms representing the plaintiffs….’What made you think I wanted 53 firms churning on this case?’,” asked U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, telling lawyers from Altschuler Berzon and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll that she was “deeply disappointed.” Koh went on to grant a request for a special master filed by Ted Frank, class action reformer with CEI and formerly a blogger in this space. [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal]


  • 53 law firms on a single case? They won’t be able to get out of their own way, much less accomplish anything useful.

    • Loads of billable hours! How can that not be useful?


    • Unless you define “useful” as making fistfuls of dollars, regardless of benefit to the plaintiffs. That definition is so prevalent, it should be enshrined in Black’s Dictionary.

      • How else would a lawyer define useful?