Compared to What?: ALI Aggregation and the Shifting Contours of Due Process and of Lawyers' Powers

A half century ago, class actions were controversial. Aggregation was seen as permissible only under exceptional circumstances that could justify departures from the obligations of individual voice, participation, and control of the then-dominant procedural framework. The adoption in 2009 by the American Law Institute of Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation marks the normalization of group-based adjudication as well as the embrace of group-based settlements through which lawyers and judges shape binding and preclusive judgments. In its 2009 promulgation, the ALI offered two models of the “process due.” One, centered on courts, requires public explanations of decisions to authorize group-based resolutions. The other imposes some regulation on out-of-court behavior yet relaxes relational constraints on lawyers by licensing them to enter into individual contracts that sign over control about mass settlements of claims to a cohort of clients and their lawyers. The ALI’s expansive attitudes contrast to another understanding of due process, exemplified by the 2008 Supreme Court decision of Taylor v. Sturgell. That ruling insisted that courts could not rely on the idea of “virtual” representation to use a judgment against one party to preclude another, even if the sequential plaintiffs shared the same lawyer. In this Article, I explore the his

[1]  C. Manno.  The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 , 2012 .

[2]  L. Brickman.  Anatomy of an Aggregate Settlement: The Triumph of Temptation Over Ethics , 2010 .

[3]  W. Rubenstein,et al.  How Transparent are Class Action Outcomes?: Empirical Research on the Availability of Class Action Claims Data , 2008 .

[4]  R. Bone.  Securing the Normative Foundations of Litigation Reform , 2008 .

[5]  S. Ware.  The Case for Enforcing Adhesive Arbitration Agreements - With Particular Consideration of Class Actions and Arbitration Fees , 2011 .

[6]  J. Resnik.  Living Their Legal Commitments: Paideic Communities, Courts, and Robert Cover , 2005 .

[7]  Marc Galanter,et al.  The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts , 2004 .

[8]  J. Resnik.  Uncle Sam Modernizes His Justice: Inventing the Federal District Courts of the Twentieth Century for the District of Columbia and the Nation , 2002 .

[9]  Jane J. Mansbridge.  The Descriptive Political Representation of Gender: An Anti-Essentialist Argument , 2001 .

[10]  Sara Candioto.  Antiterrorism and Effective Death penalty Act of 1996: Implications Arising from the Abolition of Judicial Review of Deportation Orders, The;Legislative Reform , 1997 .

[11]  Mia L. Cahill,et al.  "Most Cases Settle": Judicial Promotion and Regulation of Settlements , 1994 .

[12]  F. Juenger.  The Complex Litigation Project's Tort Choice-of-Law Rules , 1994 .

[13]  Linda S. Mullenix.  Unfinished Symphony: The Complex Litigation Project Rests , 1994 .

[14]  R. Sedler.  The Complex Litigation Project's Proposal for Federally Mandated Choice of Law in Mass Torts Cases: Another Assault on State Sovereignty , 1994 .