Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/72
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHerman, Stephen J.-
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-11T19:37:03Z-
dc.date.available2019-02-11T19:37:03Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citation64 Loy. L. Rev. 1en_US
dc.identifier.issn0192-9720-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/72-
dc.description.abstractCourts routinely appoint Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and Plaintiffs’ Executive or Steering Committees to perform certain functions on behalf of all plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation (MDL) and other complex, coordinated, or consolidated proceedings. Questions frequently arise in such cases regarding the existence, nature, and scope of duties that may be owed by such appointed counsel to plaintiffs in the litigation. Some have posited that lawyers in leadership positions have an unqualified “fiduciary” duty to each and all litigants. At the opposite end of the spectrum, others have argued that appointed counsel’s duties of loyalty remain with those individual plaintiffs whom they personally represent, to the exclusion, and potential prejudice, of other litigants with cases pending in the MDL or other similar proceedings.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectDuties owed by Appointed Counselen_US
dc.titleDuties Owed by Appointed Counsel to MDL Litigants Whom They Do Not Formally Representen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:Law Review

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Herman-FI-6.14.18.pdf433.62 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.