Jim Morsch Writes Article for Law360 on Class Action Objectors

January 11, 2017 - In the world of class action lawsuits, there are parties who make a habit of showing up to class action fairness hearings to assert specious objections solely for the purpose of delaying the proceedings and extracting self-serving payoffs. These objectors are the bane of class action attorneys and the judges who are responsible for overseeing class action settlement matters. In fact, they have helped forge rare alliances among plaintiffs and lawyers and defense lawyers, who have called the ethics of professional objectors into question and sought discovery of the arrangements between serial objectors and their lawyers.

Rather than make a living by helping to get a class certified or litigating it to a point where the defendant surrenders, these professional objectors exercise the rights of members of the class to lodge objections under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(e)(5) to the amount or terms of settlements reached by class counsel and the defendant. Courts routinely overrule such objections, and have even gone so far as to threaten sanctions and disbarment of lawyers who bring them.

The U.S. Judicial Conference has responded to the growth of professional objectors by proposing changes to FRCP 23. The changes are currently out for public comment. Recently Butler Rubin partner Jim Morsch wrote about the proposed changes in an article published in Law360 titled “Addressing the Issue of Class Action Objectors.” To read the full article, click here.