Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1005414
 
 

Footnotes (136)



 


 



The ALI Draft Proposal to Bypass the Aggregate Settlement Rule: Do Mass Tort Individual Clients Need (or Want) Group Decision-Making?


Nancy J. Moore


Boston University School of Law


DePaul Law Review, Vol. 57, 2007
Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No. 07-16

Abstract:     
The American Law Institute has recently undertaken an entirely new project - Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation. The bulk of the project is devoted to class actions; however, a number of sections address various forms of non-class aggregations, and there is an extensive discussion of non-class aggregate settlements, including the controversial "aggregate settlement rule". Rule 1.8(g) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct limits the lawyer's ability to participate "in making an aggregate settlement of or against the clients" without the informed consent of each client, in which the clients have been advised of "the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement."

The ALI Reporters propose to bypass the aggregate settlement rule by creating two exceptions. The first exception applies when the total value of the aggregated claims is more than $5 million and the total number of claimants is 40 or more. In these cases, the proposal allows individual claimants, after consultation with counsel, to agree in advance to be bound to a proposed settlement when 75% of the claimants approve the settlement or, "if the settlement significantly distinguishes among different categories of claimants, a separate 75 [%] vote of each category of claimants" approves the settlement. Limited judicial review is available, but only if the challenge is brought within 90 days, and even then, the settlement will be unenforceable only if the challenger's waiver was not adequately informed or the 75% approval or 40 person/$5 million. The second exception applies when advance client waivers have not been obtained. Here the lawyer may seek approval for the fairness and adequacy of an aggregate settlement, but the proposal provides no guidelines for determining under what circumstances courts should agree to do so.

The reporters give two separate reasons for relaxing the aggregate settlement rule. First, they argue that the rule impedes multi-party settlement and is unnecessary to protect clients, given the 75% approval requirement. Second, they argue that waivers of important rights are routinely granted, and there is no reason not to honor such waivers to enable group decision-making. This article challenges the reporters' assumptions and argues in favor of maintaining the status quo. The author argues that the burden is on the reporters to justify change and that they have not met that burden with respect to either of the suggested rationales.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 36

Keywords: The American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation, Rule 1.8(g) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, aggregate settlement rule, group decision-making

JEL Classification: K13, K19, K39, K41, K49

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 10, 2007  

Suggested Citation

Moore, Nancy J., The ALI Draft Proposal to Bypass the Aggregate Settlement Rule: Do Mass Tort Individual Clients Need (or Want) Group Decision-Making?. DePaul Law Review, Vol. 57, 2007; Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No. 07-16. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1005414

Contact Information

Nancy J. Moore (Contact Author)
Boston University School of Law ( email )
765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States
617-358-0501 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,064
Downloads: 139
Download Rank: 121,672
Footnotes:  136

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.344 seconds