8. Financing civil litigation: the US perspective Deborah R. Hensler 1. INTRODUCTION Virealy every aspect of Saanciag civil Itgnion i the Unit States fers fom the European model, atleast with regard fo formal rls. Jn the US, in most cil gation, each party i reponsbe frie om lal es and expenses, without eeu othe outeome ofthe gation, Consistent ‘with this peincpe, in most insances how the lager’ foe {is calelated is « mater of private contract between lawyer an chen ‘Aiorneys may represent elents ona contingency fe bass, on aa oe ‘ass, om an Hourly ene pla expenses busi, or On any oer bal hat the lawyer and een contract for. Normally, in tort lis for money ‘damages and ln contract and ober caims where thee & pote for tortie damages, pints ae represented by layers on a contingency fee basis There re exceptions to these ule: in sme etegrie of Pate Sil gation sats spo ee arrangement, and ncn acon abd Some ober forms of group Itgtonjadgs decide the amount of esto ‘awarde to attomeye wh represet the cas cr eoup ‘The origin of the American fv re Is uel” (Leubstor' 198, Notwithstanding the genera ul, tee ae cieumstancsin which courts ‘pose te winner’ costs on the ese, commonly teamed ee shifting” A survey of slate law conducted othe i980 found aloe 200 ste Statutes mandating or authorizing one-way feciting en plas eval (Not 1984). Aszonding to the Feral Judical Cet, by the ‘id 199s Congres had pasa cone to 20 sates authoring fe shi ing, most iid to one-way Taos for prevaling paints (isch nd Shechey 1934, p-)- Congres has athorza one-way fo siting in ‘sis browght under crits lw (12 US. $1988 (198), environ ‘nena land in oer icustaces whee legilalor deemed it appre ite to incentive Ingato for example Fal Acres to Fstioe Act, 288 US.C. 22). In additon, under fader and state law judges may shift es (ther way) as a Sanction for abusive ization pts (0, 11 New rd financing tion Bone for ample, FR.CP. 1 authoring sanctions including attorney fs {brews clans) or for equitable reasons, a8 when a lawyer orders 3 ‘tena dvorsing spate to pate lp eso i expouse ‘Other things ein, US igtion fnsocing rls oupht to faite cies acceso eourt whe they have meritorious el damage ean, ‘by mining the financial isk of plaints who esi attorney on 8 contingency fee snd by allowing pun attorneys to prosecute thse ‘him without fear of advere cont By extension, the fe eps ought to agen defendant isk of being sud for common av negligence and Salutory violations where money damages ae allowable for example, onsumer fraud, scriesvoations antvias.But he fee regime also permis defendants to make wilh confidence rsk-beet eauations Shout their fa gation expenditures, without fn of bing required to Aboshoulde opposag paris’ expends ‘Some aspect of ligation Anancing rus tat may Tite igation oll jurslicions ae noe prevalent ia the US. For example in sme §Jorscuons ci gens hae ares to publicly subsided lea services snd insome, es insurances widely avaiable. Inconiras,intbe US, he {overeat offers very ite nancial i orci iigation, and nsraace {cove the os ofbnging tigations rae (The coat of deteding po ‘Sodertsgsine liabltysit nlude in posal, profesor and ‘Sommer abit insurance coverage) “Albouph ot sel pat ofthe Bnaning regime, certain other aspects of th US ef justice system fiat acs to courts and favor ig tio, iasudig lawyers right to adver, uss goverang avards in or ‘luis, andthe coastal ight ta jy tal in money damage suits. Layes have bee permited to adverts the United States ioe the US Supreme Courts aling in Bates». State Bar of Artzona, 43 US. 350 (0977. Although lawyer advertising sil ss contovesy in some qoac- tes fos by attorney groups and sat legiatures to peokibit certain fos of adverising ave met with limited secs. Theres evidence at fopinary csns fn insyers in prt troup verti (Henle 1991, TAD 59, p13, Advertising seule by state a and ues of profesional conduct but neal Ines are reo advert tha se ‘Seas ong st their advertiement ar not “ase, decepve or mead. [a im adertsng generated $575 milion a TV venus 2006 ia he same oar, gal adver accounted for an addtional $2 lion in web ‘vetsing. Personal injury lawyer are sid tobe responsible forthe balk of lawyer advertsing (Aspan 2007- In tort tigation, jry awards for economicloss that by state nw die {rd wheter he plantas been compensated through private or pi Insurance (the ‘collateral Source rue), provide for nomeconom os (sin and stein? and occasionally pent pnive damages drive the expected vse of damage clans gr tha in urisitions fat rest "ards in some oral ofthese specs Although the ‘ot refor’ move nent Has ha considerable socnssiniting such septs of tort awards (American Tort Reform Assocation, 30 June 200) US tort vale til appear io be substantially higher than io oterjration. As result the expected value o plant atormeys contingent es high than i ight othervie be. In adton, because defendants are exposed to ighet Tabityavardsand therefore more inclines to investin vigorous elo, ‘heros counsel bling ac kel ao to hgh than cewbere Fal admission 1 the bar othe US may e ls ett tan some othe ursditions, producing lager supply of wy, ive {o demand. Ber passage rte inthe US range fom lovs around 6 pet zt (Calfonta Bar lara, December 2008 o high oer 8D per cet {Quates 4 December 208). Thve atts ae sm f those in some ‘other uristicions although markedly bghe than thers. Forex Tsai 2008, 8 per ent of aw students ho tempted the ba ena oe ‘the it time pase (Haare, 4 May 209) Stari nent ears bout 60 per ent of tose who st foe the avoca exam scrote bt {he total numbers of appians were ery sll peroeal eommonition 2009). In Tay in recent years about 50 per cet of thase who st forte ‘writen portion ofthe examination were advan tothe segue oral ‘tam: gzarally about 80 per cent of those wh wer examined eal ac- ‘edad; dig an ovealaucces rat of about 0 per cnt. Towra of ‘sppleani sit forthe Iain bar nam snoanty(Baenghi 2007) Inns Josdictions there are mule tps to lenroe tat ender he perce ‘age amie at the Gal stage dial to interpret a a meanue of ease ‘of aces tothe gal proeston, For example, brises in England must omplete an undergraduate law degre a bar vocations! soure and ‘hen Bod 3 pupae (raining poston ina barat chambers. Abo 1500 complete the coure each year ~approxinstely hal of those win apply but ony about 500 paige annual ave been fered in rere yeas (English ar Counc! 2009), In Poland ently there are lle tes to admission to practi in resent year about 7S pe eat of tho ‘who applied fr using postions sured (Ministry ofFstice 209) a focizast, unt 200%, te bar exam pase atin Japan ae sbout 3 pet feat. Mer the estashent of pont gradu aw soos he bar extn passage rte said to have inctesed Lo 30 pe ont (Pas, 2005) This ast yer, lawyers in Japan have begun pressing for the bar passage ate {o be lowered spain (personal comsuniation with Prot. Tako Tess, February 200) tn Taiwan te bar exam pase ale aio be pet ‘saat (Chi Chien et, 2010).1 ‘New ennai i gain i Eup Insum, the US civil justice pte ees designat to facta acceso ‘ours, Although controversial, the proposton ta Iitgation san appro rite tol for regulating private beavioe ina society tht has wally ‘rch public nan publi regulation a veises for eb shared Soil psi provides the foundation fora si jae sem thal favors Privat fitgaton. This arc, Idee the operation ofthe US financing system in ordinary and complex cv ligation. Secon 2 dacs Bsacing for teinay gation between two or few partie. Altbough the categories ‘fei tigation nthe US ar dies, Scion 2 focuses penal jury Tgatiog, came hat area ha been mot hocoughly researched Seton 3 decane founcing ce aetions and other group ligation, including Secures, ant-rs, employment dsciminatio, consumer protection, Sd prsoal injury and propery damage cass Section 4 dices tbe idence on American cuses and considers how the US financing ‘stem alos gation bebavor. Seton 5 concludes 2, FINANCING ORDINARY CIVIL LITIGATION I ordinary ch Hipton ouside of the personal injury cotest and fevolving ove orto parson etch side, Farts generally pay lawyers fn an oul or fa fee basi, Fat fe ave ofr for staple matters, fh as uscotestd divorces (which must be subited to the court for approval, and sometimes or trighforwara events, sch srepeseata ton a courtcomneted alenative dispute resolution hearing Hens, ‘Adi and Nelson 1983). Most lawyers Who represet plants meson injury Itgation ofr cients contingency foe apreemeats tbat eae ‘oc that he nye wl take oe thir of damapsi theca seer nt "SD sper cent the ene egies rial A nationally representative srvey of acent victins found tha 7 pe cant of people who hed lawyers to ‘presen hem in perioral jury ligation el contingency fo agree. ‘bens 4 pr eet hired lajers for ed fer, sod less an 1p cnt spread to pay ously Tes and expense (Healer etl 1991, Table $11 130, Some layer ofr epost cunts before ing sur ower ontngency fe ate (Heyman Law, nd) Ansodoally, it appears that Some contingsnt fc attorneys charg the higher ‘tia rt or ess that {9 to mediation or othe alernative dispute resouon hearing, noth ‘Sanding the fat tt most sock proeedings require ite preparation of txpert evidence oil advocacy she Their ile evidene ha contin lemcy fe anger compete or cent by ofenglower than wrap com {Ungeey fer and the cnet contingent fo spear lo have peritad The US perspec 1s for dacades. In a sri of is of ition costs conducted in the 1980s, de rsearcher found pice competition smong Pail contingent fer lawyers only in the aren of highalve aviation accident iigaton (Baka t a 198, Kaka apd Pace 1986; ad Kaka etal 1985, ‘A patil eeretentad by a Innyer working on a contingency fe agreement pays no fee upiron. The kwger pays all of the tigation pense, itladiag aby gation elated medical expenses for example the cos of medial tse conducted to evaluate the pln’ abit). Profesional rls general probit loners om being paints py formedical are, but 1989 ational survey of US aoadent victims found that one-third of vets who consulted storey a that the storey ‘eeommended a specie couse of beats care, a spt beatae po "ier o both ad 13 pr cat sid thatthe aloe ofr to help them th expenses while cher lain was beg proces (Hensler ta. 153, po. 13035), 'A-mumber of private companies ofr represented pias cash a exchange for property interes in their unresolved lawsuits thes entr= prises adverse her seve as means of eetving quicker reinbuse- ‘ea ofthe expenses acted wth asset nr, (Se, for xa ‘raved com; wor gepalfnds com wworamercnlpalund- Ing com: wa anavauts com: we iigationepitalinvestors.com) All ofthese eateries pest to in thelr advance to pitifs who have ‘bined egal representation, perhaps so at not to run afoul of eal fulsthat forbid lawyers to spe tb fe wih aoe ayers (ost Hates fo Tonge enforce the old English rules of champarty and maintenance that forbade contracts that advance peyments to paces contingent on the outcome ofa pending cas), Perhaps to drive bome ths point, th et "Ligation Capital Investors expnins that thar no contol over the cast aud doesnot partial in setlemen! negotiations All ofthe enterprises fer ca in the form ofan “anc on the satlement amount (ot ‘efred to af a “nontecoure advance). By sucturing payments at ‘contingent on case outzonc, thee fading enerptes my ako hope fo ids usry la that might otherwise ep the prentages charges 12 ‘cel pantie Hyman and Frukia 29), Ilan co not obtain Aazoages, nothing i omed othe funder (thats aon zesoure) ey do ‘obtain damage, he funder reves a seiburseneat snd fe, Ligon Capital Investors explains that onl purchases a shave ofthe secovey, szerally 10-20 pr ext and that generally it provides $2500-$20000 but ‘Bat it has advanoed as much a 2 millon i some cases, The fim ote ‘line advances for high-vale cares and monthly payment plans etd Also oles to payoff advances tht te plait hs obtained fom oer suc eateries, Other companies fer ca for srotured stementsi New nes nani it gain Ee obtained in a awit that has already been resolve, (Sx, for example, ‘onvfirindcom:, wen-paiosetlnent con: wewnomerewaling orn) The ims "PatritSeteneat and ‘No More Waling’ fer cash ‘dvanees not only for sutured seterens at ao for ehmitis and Tovey awards, supgsing that enterprises perosve all ths To represent similar investment opportune, ‘Wie a plu prevails by setemento rl he attoeney bil ee for leg fos snd expenses pls the contract sprentapon site of damage. Some pli storney rt sompate thor sare ofthe toa ‘mount pai by the defendant and then subract het expenses from the Glen's share; others st subtract expenses fom the oll amount pas bythe defendant and then compute tb share ofthe rang amount. “lousy ilig prevails i corporate Higstion penrally eluding on the defense side i tort tigation, wih es ranging fom an average of around S10Ohou fr smal is vpresetig cet is lowstakes hie {ion to upwards of S100Mour for top law fms represeting eens in high-stakes matters (GAO 2001; Fotado 200, Wall St. Journal Law Blog 209), Insured defendant in ot tigation ae typially represented byinurance defense counsel who contract withthe insurance company. Hourly bing by ouside eons! is increasingly under aac. Ta an lft to reduce lp cont, corporations inceaing]y assign routine Tegal matters to inshoue lawyers who ar pid Rouy saree to ‘contacts in wich lw’ finas agree to take on package of high lume predictable legal work fora fat fx and asign igh rol mates 10 lowe firms that agosto charge lover hourly ates in exchange for sucoss fees if defendants preva ot do Bete than usual asim cases (ABA Commission on Bilabie Hours 2002; Wetman 2008; Inside Counsel 207), Outside defense counsel may nod to seek approval from cents {or adopting expensive patio tactic, sucha exper research esa 210) Coeporate law ims and corporations ae increasingly oxtsousing legal work, prtulcy oid (D'Angelo 208; Krishna 307.1 semis ‘el that ese arangements wl come more popula ara rel ofthe ‘lobal economic dowtura Sl, n high-stakes ese Glee led costs ‘nay beenonmous: 2007, Merck reported spending moe than SI blon ‘on legal fees and expense to defend een gation ring out of Vows, ‘which tread fom th markt in 2004 Seidestia 2008) ‘Although large law fms an lrg legal fees command media atten tin, a ape fraction of plains and defendants repeset themes in leg ates ranging fom dvores to simple contrac spats to ‘sll ale tort mates. In ome instabes, pose partes uppeac in small ‘aims cout where us forbid lye to uppear even when one or bth pars eanaford thom (Finney and Vanovich 2008). fn other nang, Tre US parece 1s an unvepresented party may find horl facing «lyr for the oppo ing ary Some US slate courts report wpmands of 5 per cont of sults in dors, andlordtenam, probate and other el mater involve oe ‘or mote unteeeunted partie There i ile reason fo tee that hee paris avoid nwyers fer eologal eons, rather than lack of fone ‘wheevital (Nalonal Cente for State Courts 3908) The high eae of ‘represntd pula is combination with a relly lage supply of lawyers dives bome he observation thatthe US lel servos nd i sharply ted towards age cozporate parties (Galant 2000, FINANCING CLASS AND NON-CLASS MASS LITIGATION ‘While eal fos and financial arrangements in ordinary tigation ae largely unrelated inthe US, common lim, court ele, and practice ave spose a reglitory framework on mass iation involving age suber of plait and sometimes Inge numbers of defendents: Mass ligation compris claims arsing ow of alegsd violations of scares, spd ants (competion sates common nw nd stator conser Fraud vl sights vations Gacuting employment deriminaton), 0d esonal jury and property tort In some stances, the litigation Pro feeds in clas atin form, tn other istanoe,allomeys agpepte id ‘dual ims aod gate the in groups. In fe isances, ms li ‘ave been itgnted in US bankruptcy cours, With natonlzation and ‘mote scent lobalzation of economic att, te isdeace and scope fmaisiigation hasimcreaned ramatically (ele 20; Henles 20), ‘Mass liigation often prooeds in multiple oa, win and ouside he US, ‘ncrninal, ci and bankrapley courts and at thebestof pete snd bli partis, ll athe sme tine. Coordinating veh tigation imposes ional costs on both pare and courte In the US, the merensd sks ‘of soc Eigation fr pli counel and defendants alike has ed fo ep eat that promote selene in virtually sl case, ‘81 Financing Css Action Ligation Provisions for cass actions ~ tigation in which one or more partes come fora o represent group of ike pris who are aot formally tore the cout hve been pt of US law since the county's inception (Genre al. 200, Chapiee 2. The groundwork or the Ameian ass ‘ton canbe found in medieval Engi av, although tue represetaive Gles actions are not pened under contemporary Engh aw (eaze1s ow onde ie fang i iat Bape 198°) Inthe modern era inthe US, the most sgnicat chang in cas tin rules cccurred in 1966, when Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of| (Gil Proordure way substantially amended. Accounts ofthe smentent ‘roves greta th intent of the rule defers was to fulitae the we | se actlons, parol) by uimants charging cll ahs Wao by publ intone (Healer ea 200, Chapter) ‘Before a lavsut can prose in class fom, Rule 23 reuires that the nde asine to wou ekming classaction status cert hat che Wigan meus variety of rte, ssading thatthe cas adequately epreseated. Rule 24) sis the threshold rite fr alles acons| fd Role 2(0) ienties diferent circumstances that justly cae ations {od sete orth adiiona criteria for certving damage clas actions. “Although the language of Rule 25 resto the adequacy of parties to represent the elas, over tie, judges increasingly interpreted. the ‘adequacy of representation’ ecetion a requring an ingiy ato the competence and experiene of the cat represent’ egal coon [Ava esl the lnwyerclentratinship, which in orinaryItgntion is ‘ute the prvew ofthe our and governed mainly by rls of profes Sonal conduct, has come within the copnizanee of judges asignod Lo lass Seton weit Tecate the outcome ofa lt action avait bade al cass meter, whether the case is sed or decided by summary judgment ori the {US clas action regime contains a large number of provisions to ensure 2 Tir proces, In money damage sts actions that proceed ander Rie 236) G) the most important ofthese provision isthe opportunity fora slass member 1 opt out ofthe tigation entity and purse er ow ind- dal suit. Extensive notation prootures(ommonl ered notie’) ie required to easure thatthe opt-out opportamty el one Bt the fl daftrs were als concer about the consauences fran ss ‘members who didnot op out of element green between he as ‘epresentatives) and te defendant. As a eu Rule 236) reuies hat ‘judge ft rvew (aftr publ beriag) and thn aprons a proposed Setement onl ithe jude ids, ar being any objecons rom cass ‘members, thatthe sete i “lr, reasonable, and adaquat” The roavirement that jodgerviow a setenent negated by pvt ci atic ets cas actions apart fom ordinary ci ligation in the US, ‘where setemeats are favored by pubbe policy and not normaly sbjet {oud eve ‘atl eceny, US cls asin rae were sen with eard to bow ase sti atoms were tobe past ad how ther compensation ast be etemined. Exopt incase where Congres mandated spec Tle ‘he normal US ferrule apple meaning tha the class present) The US preci 1s snd clits ston storeys had no rk of adverse fsa a therefore n0| ‘oquremest to post bond psig sic es, The defendant aly was responile fr paying its own fos, wheter it Won ot lx. Some US Stu hat provide for ce acone contain one-way fe sing rls, tneaag that delendans ae reqied to pay aoa fs for peving ‘las members atin mort private damage laevis o sich tates Tn the absece of sates o¢ formal ues, it wa et othe cout to fashion ligation feaneng heme for cls actions and other iiation inwhiha party at os behalf group or public iteret. Along i of US jurspradence sounding in egy hols that wena comma tenet ‘or fd actus to a poup of parte srl of tigation, the group's attorneys es and expenses ae paid by all ofthe groups members, not ji the party who stepped forma to bing the laws! ‘Not only can cours rue hat al ls members cooebate to attr ey fee compensation, a dais action attorney Hx not permite to enter int a ee contract witha as sepesntaive, onthe theory that ich 3 ‘sale contract mio itor th represattive' incentive ofihly "eprsent the interest of absent class meters who are ot pate tothe onuac? Ths jaigemade foe dotine eames tha hes ta source of ands to pay the storey whoacton Dba of the lsat leet whe he class prevas~ and hth cot Barden no aesme slely by the cast "representative thereby elscinaing the peta for fe iding by eer ‘las members. (Uiless the as counsirs laced employe of a NGO ‘roe organization tat funds clas ions i the ls oes not preva thecounal rive no fees and mis cover expense hel) How sarge number of elas members most of who ar not actively ‘xgngein the tigation ~could die what the attorney owed 0 bow ‘hat payment sould be apportoned amoag the class manors pose ‘obvious practic hillenge, The respons inthe US has bee fo authorze {hoje to evard fees and expen to cls counsel, acting in esece us fhduaryfor the dass ‘Prior to 203, when provisions specifi to the appointment of cas counsel and attorney fer were added to Rie 3, eer dee tok thet autor for revising and approving (or disapproving fe eau in {las ations rom thet setdement approval athority Rule 232, Even ‘when counsel argued that they had nepoited the cls stement a0 Storey fes seperately, judges Bold thatthe cas counsels fees were ‘ropa subj to review and appeova By the eaty 20005, concens| Shout collusive setteneats~ deals in which class counsel allegedly agree tolessthan-adquatesetements fo las mene, in return fo defend snl aeguiseenee Io etcesive fe requests — ed the federal judiciary to1s New ren framing i ation ape mend Rule 23 wo make explicit he judg’ espns to approve fe ‘equ. In adi, the Civil Ruks Commitee Advisory Commitee fncouragat judges presting over class actions to require tht clas ‘nome be informed asto teatro ee sad Us ar contemplated, £0 a5 to provide an opportunity for das mambers to objet 0 fen, 38 well as othe mei of the setement ise (Advisory Note to FRCP. 2B) Consent with this advice, mode notes of pending aston setlements pied a tial picance onthe Federal Tua Cnters website (ww flow) inde not ony the toms of the sleet (or rape Who lilt aim compenston, how rach elas member fan expect to obtain, and s0 on) bts the emount offen requested by as counsel. And when objetors come forvard, thy often do sont ‘as counsel fee rquent, even when they have no objections to other ‘eemeat provisions (Hensler 200, footnote 18, 9.93 9). “The question remains ow should judge etemine the smount of fess, and expenses tht appropiate Io compenste crea cas counsel ‘As formal matte, te judge approves or dpproves te foe eget by elas counsel Gee FARCE. 230), a practical mater, howe, the {nde the fe amount. Two approaches lave energed over tie! te ‘pefentge of fund” approach and the lodestar appro Historical, courts warded atorejs a percetage of the common fan wheo plaints preva (Federal adsl Cntr 2000 Er a tie thisapproach flint diver arf argvd that produced wind profs out of proportion tothe ne and fot cles couse! had aves ft proseutig the action on beh of the cis, thetey encouraging ‘volo ligation In response to ert, jedpes begun to aad fos 08 the bass ofthe hoars and cost actully expended by clas counsel with ‘ours valu atthe going rate inthe geograpicl are where the cout sis plus prema itera multiplier) forte els achive iss ‘undertaken by class count), and other factor ln ergs scale national it ftion, court sometimes ued higher fee ate for layers who pally [rato outside the cours geographial oale) This (pe of elelaton| ‘termed the odes’ proach, although jst why it acquired ths ie ‘uncertain (Report of the Ted Crt Task Fors 1985 The lodestar Approach, io tu, ito diver a es arp that I rewarded leer fo investing exces ane initiation snd as js struggled to find the ine to review andthe expertise to evaluate the time recon class, counsel submited and eas coun!’ cn fora fs mute Toay there i dvsion across the US appellate cuts with epard to whether judges are permed or required to use one or the other approach, but {he majority have returned to favoring the percentage of fund proach (Federal Judicial Center 208), The lodestar approach cots (0 prevall in flea sattoryfrshiting eases, but he US Supreme Court as fo ‘iden th ppiation fe malin such cases a cout adopting the lodestar apeoac, i a x common) soil As eve a ls counsel cach fm subst ours ad expenses for seview and judge may ania dire fe rte and tar ferent) ‘muller teach, Whena peroentage fund sproach ewe the out [Siklt leave the dition of fees among ule sas couse rs to private negotiation among those fms. In some iastances in which counsel jin oetber toring cls action they may gotten expe sharing rangement amoag tenses before flag the ws, a8 ben {group of 0 plant rma came together to le aatonwide is acton ‘gains the ig tobacco companies In that ease, was eportd that each ‘member of the aa aw frm commie contributed S100000 to join {Ge frm consortium. "Nether statutory nor case aw as estabishe right ine rls or wht peroentage oft common fund judge shold award to sce last une o the aporopite mule a judge show apy te lodetar falcon. Some federal eppelate cours have ruggte beochmarks foceourt guidance’ bt waraed that the sould not esp mechan cally’ Cc courts of appeal ave st forth vacou fate that shou be taken into account in applying beashmarks for percentage and awards or lips for odearevards." but have defined thee factors impresi ‘A study of publihed fo decisions fom 1993-2002 found jee avarded a mcah of about 22 per eat ofthe common find it noes: Stiting cases; the median was about 23 percent sgstng that the Pcetages awarded were dstibuted oughly normally (hati, without ! skew tothe high o low ead ofthe dstabtion) (isenberg and Miler 2003, Table). Im secures ass, which accouted for about Half ofthe eae tied, the fee percentage sveragnd 24 pr et in onsime ass, ‘which sosounted fr roughly one-sixth, the fe petenge averaged 16 Per zat" The nominal smount offre was strongly cored withthe omial valu ofthe seement fond a8 the sie of th fund ices, 99 too did the amount of fo judge warded to clase counsel. Bu atoray fee awards as a paceotage ofthe selement fen, destined somewhat 1 the se of the fund increased. For common fonds upto about S10 nilion, fe percentage averaged around 25 percents for common funds from about $10 milion o $38 milion, aes averaged aroun 20 pr cet, for fans anging from $38 milion o $190 malo, fs erage closet 10 17 por cnt and forthe largest setonent clr inthe dataset es sveraged 12 percent (Bsenberg and Miler 20 Table, “Although the Elenberg nd Miler tae included bot feral and1 Nw rnd iain i gato Faye state court as, it was not astaisizally representative simple ofalclass Actin cases in which adgesavatd fs, a nt all ach wars esa Published dectons. Type, published dessons under reprtet sat ‘our eases How such unerrepresntation might have alee the nd ingsisusknown;in their dataset, Eenberg and Miler fund no satis Aiferenesteimeen average fr awards in feral and state our nse ‘ugpsting the sate court under repeseaation may not be to important ‘Amore important caveat to the Eisenberg and Miler gyi tt published court opinions provide no information about the actual noun, ‘STibe common fund that lar members collected, ad therefore no m3 to ‘augehow much af the otal setement dollars pa wet to se coun Tnreent ers, private ms havecmerged tat fora sbscipon fe sean theleal landscape fo clas acon hat have heen saved ad le ais on behalf of els who may unwittingly have Become cls members (See, for rample, sw.caimscompenaton.com) Bt patel i ‘aes where cass memes’ lai are for mode mount, ase vi. ‘dene indcate tat rg fraction of clas members neve ome fora to chim the compensation owed thon under the stlement. In auch ies he actual pereentage ofthe total amount expended by the defend ‘nto sso the pation may be far J than te moan sugested published options. ‘Courts do not routinely monitor and report the fection of lst members who come forward lo cin compensation or the ot propor tion f common fund dollars paid oat to aes members 20 compress ata on this plenomenon are lacking A 2000 analysis oft as tort land consumer cass actions found fein which css members cole orks ofthe total pad out by defendant ost te cass and only ‘rein which class embers collated 70 percent or mor ofthe otal pad ‘ut ens et a, 2000, Figure 139, p. #83) Sach mismatches beeen {he toa percent ofthe fand awarded to as oda and the tol Pet eat ofthe dallas pa that clas counsel collet ocue wien stem ‘agrements provide that ay dlinr not aimod by cas members are not ‘el by the defendant to anyone ~ socalled ‘eversionry" setlemens ‘Although wid exe a4 spn of colin betwen snl hss ‘countalapd the defendant (Hense tal. 200, pp 7983), reversonary betements have been approved by fdeal and stat jade, Moreover, ‘ours have upheld the avatd of hs counsel fre cnlelated as share of the fll eomrion fend even whan the saement agreement specie that ‘ny unclaimed fandrwould overt othe defendant. In the abernce of bright-tne rules forthe appropriate perentge of & fund oth appeopite mulipir toaward prevaling ela cone) omit jdges ave turned to competitive process, im which they inital oF Phe USprpecive ta 2 set group of cs action fm to indict pio tothe inception of ligation what thir festrstre wl eA eopoul tht courte auction clas action representation to the highest bidder mong law fits ~ tht 5, the im wing lo pay the most to represent clan expectation of ‘waning oe proportion to obtome sed considera inter ut so ciism nthe juin and legal ecadeia (Macey and Miler 191). “Moai yeesons of Macey sd Miller's propor have ben adopted by Some eral jd and the action staegy was nde soe pot thle approach to ecting and paying end coun! bya task force ofthe ‘Tid Cucultapelat bench, which judes have looked to for guience on fe issues ove the ast several decade (Third Cieit Task Fore 08 the Section of Class Conse 202) Although the Chil Rls Ady Commitee destined to include spi authority for ations nthe 2003 Rule 25 amendment, tee has ben 90 sigicat challenge to aera judges autboriy torque lead count compete or tet appointment “The passage the Private Secures Ligation Relorm Act PSLRA) in 1995 alo seems to have encouraged price competion among cas action fis. By awarding presompave lad plant stats to the investor) with the age ancl sak in a scures dass acon lavau, che 2c created incentives for plain case ston rms Yo compete for te "Support ofthese investors for cass counsel appointments (The PSLRA, sso bansed incentive puynents by clr counts to csr epics ‘uaving insures gation he yp of rangement tat ave eo federal prosctin of some prominent as stingers) The PSLRA, iereporte to have produced another outcome that hate to price com Psion among patti cas aio ims: now moe engaged in monor- fnglass ations (Ie expci am ofthe statue's ead pli proviso), insitoona investors have begun fo exercise op-ut sights to pursue india! gation. Reporely, many ofthese investors ate soln ‘ds fom leading clas aon frst represent them in thi individual ligation, with rice key factor in im lei Tolland Rese 200), 'No ont knows hw mach prot paint Iw frre realize fom tec ‘as action practices I sens kely that in some instances the pros fe enomou, but els action can be risky proposition for aw rms 22007 study of tsurance policy Holder” clas aon psn inure ‘companies found tht only I per cent of eas compat were certo 0 proceed in class form th est Were devi cetifation, dsmised oe with ‘raen o esoved by individual itgton ta ikl yided much smal ‘movots than mould have the hoped-for cass asin (Pace 2007). Cast ‘ton law fries thei own resources in prosecuting das actions, 8nd wen they donot obtain aden or setlement for cass members, they ese no compensation forthe tine or reimbursenat of thle1 Nw wend financing i igao i Eaape ‘expen, The esoures expended can rn inthe millions of dalla: one Pisin atorey, who di nt wis to be Wend, told th author te frm had billed approximately S20 milion worth of time and paid moze than $3 mio n expenses to other nt sillongoing clas acto. “The pracice of third-party fending of cis ligation, which devel ‘oped in Austalia and has now migrated to Burope has Je to Boome ‘wdesprea inthe US laste, pal law fms bein lines of edt to Finance thet aw ies operations, The station for banks that provide these lines ores note shar th igtion, lather what woul ‘befor anyother basins loa: theatres on loans and the ataction of Folding the lage sums post wth tne when the law fms ae tee ‘eal In rocent yest, some banks have estaba speciale cisions that ofr creative nding arangements to fms with tbstata por folorofhigh-ale eases (Yeuael 200]. With cet avalble to them ‘on pod terms, he best Koon pli la shave ite incentive to turn to third pty fonder who dena significant cio othe ees ‘blaine when pnt prevail Mesa report oa the evoltion of thi ‘arylation financing th US ogget tht ema awe see the ‘os common repent of thr party aang (Pranel 206). “The dominance af well capitan nw fms ith food acces to cet {in cas action practice nthe US (an in sb-nches thi, sche secu ties tigation poss spa challenge or ine party Funders seeking to ‘ter the market the most expentnced and best known fim have ile ‘eed fo exchange a share ofthe fs for upfront Funding and redo ‘ik and the leer known, les experienced shat might be tered ‘nguch an agreement areas katy succeed i th eas sion domain ‘This challenge may be exacerbated by the consquonces of te PSLRA nd by the more rent passage ofthe Class Action Fast Act of 2008 (CAFA)- After the PSURA's passage, the largest and most experienced ‘ecules eas ation fms began forge tong relationships with est {onal investors, incding pension fond, increasing the Uklood that when class counsel wee selected they woul be th ead forte poi. Rather tan cabia he ol of hee case ation fms in he proseetion of secures ilgason (an unspoken but widely understood objective a the State) it seems ely thatthe PSLRA enhanced ther statue end ade ‘nor sical the task of smaller ls experienced frm who wi o break {nto the market. More rent, CAPA, whi provides feral ors ton for multi-state as actions where thee minimal verity betwen {he eas and the defendant, seems to have further strengthened the pos ‘on ofthe lrg elacaction fms, which have extensive expects in federal courts (rihson 2009. Noneticles, thedparty funders might Sind foothold ia the met by nvesing in ims that pin of fom large ‘Te US porpcive 6 ‘welbknown firms when individual nwyers desde to sok thei fortunes ‘uti these larger ims, Inde some third-party finances a id to ‘betacked by priacpls hom highly succes pin lw Se (Franke 206) A rowing academic and precdoner-orentd legal erature arguing in fiver of gation funding ad svgperting ow funder (and eer who might beet fom hisparty funding) might eieuntent tative bars on dhirdparty funding practi eines the interest hid- ity feng begun to rer in th US (Molt 200), the absence of ssteatic empl eden on psn lw ima earnings, we can only assume that las actions, properly Mntiod at Such and prosecuted capably, cara substatlenough profi ao make {he pratioaratv. Cis action practice lias contributes sie tanlly tothe handsome prtsperpartes reported by the leading US operates who represent dendantsin sch cons. ‘32, Facing Now-Clss Mas Actons In the US when many individual cls are aggrogated togetr but prose in aonas form the cout authority to regulate fees ch ‘euoed, by compatisoa to clas aeons. Nonsasappepntion i typical ‘of mse personal injury and property daape gation in the US, where fase na long eld hat las utfcation i generally inapopviat for ‘ck chims (Hensler ec al 200; Hensler 2007) In hese moderate high “alu ot ei, pans ene int individual epesetation contingency fee contacts wth nw firs whose parc sto bundle ogsterhundrest thousands of chime rising oto the me ccanances, The practice gargating aims was the key ingredient th iso ms fot ign: tion inthe US (Hensler and Peron 1993) and opened the door othe ‘courthouse for asbestos veins (Carol etal 3005) andor toi ort ‘himants. Although pitif storeys represent agreed aman 4 group the ypealy charge each of thee lint the same coningey fee rohly one third) they wou fey were representing a cleat i tely individ igaon (Cal et a 2005, p. 102-100, As with all contingency fertigation ithe pill doesnot preva he int owes ‘hela noting ad the fms to cove its own mes expnnes “Cou nvohement in managing faunal arrangements noma ‘mass ort tigation come wen larg aubere of case fd in mul tpl jusicton and then eoorldsted na sngle court ad aged to gl judge under federal statute 28 USC. § 1407 (he mult Ihgaton (MDL) stata) oss ateroles tha apply to mason ‘within a sng sat. This procedare has ome sian tothe Engh Group Litton Order (GLO) (Hordes 2001, To te lst two decades,we Now end fang igi i Exape ‘rua all mas persona injury tigation led or removed tothe federal ‘courte has beso consolidated in the festion Hensier 2007). Iti cow ‘ommoa pac or judges asigned to manage sich gation wo appois 1 "pliti steering commie (PSC) comprising te most promineat aw finns rom among those who are representing the plait. Although the {eer statute tat provides for coordination of mass tort cases formally apples only to federal case, thas become common in ecent years fo Federale who preside over mt-st tation to coordinate with sae court jadpes who are overeing sat cases hate part ofthe mass litigation and event neue lawyers tigating those ass sta courts ‘on the Federal cour pill steving corte (Federal Judi Center tos, pp. 08-40, Hisvngappoitd some rst ead the iipaton~ conduct discovery, raft and argue prota moton and so forth sedpes have ft noo 0 ‘provide «mechani for paying tam. Judge have taken She ether Fororderng fee eeangeons from eguiabl fe docsne, reasoning that the paint serng comaite mene are cresting a 'common bene by leading the Higaton (Federal Juda Cte, Fourth 200, pp. 407). Typical, te judge sure 2 fe oder spaying how the east of serping tbe ftigatn sto be shared umang al ofthe ayers who are representing paints before the cour Sometimes thejudge orde pe fas thatthe pliner wil owe te pit seeing commits ‘meus hav of ey setlement they btn” a fund seabed eary in the pation ad i niviua Tawsits (or groups of lawsuits) at sed a tine propre, asesenents ago! setements yield paymeats into the fund tat both emiburse werng fommite Iyer for any expenses they have pad out Up font and rove sport for the ongoing itgation. Funds may aio be dsbured ‘other lawyers whose work benefits he ongoing tigation agsezae or example sen federal egation that was cord sated with tae iation against a contact ns manufactrer, the federal {de sued a cae management oder eabishing ering commitoe ng wo be susie by atesments agai recoveries ranging fom 4-6 er cont, depending onthe mature of the eaim. The tecrments ae 10 be witbel from all stements the defendant may enter nto and pid Airey into the fund by the defendant. Lawyer inthe paral coord "ated sate itiption who choot oe the work product of he pit Sterng comme in the federal as have aged to subject teste: ‘nent recoveries to the asesment aswell The federal judge apple & ‘evil pubbe accountant o manage the steering somites fun" na few recent instances, jes presiding over consobdated mass tom Igation under the Tederal malic igntion statute bave Phe US ppc Ms announced thatthe wil erotinz sn petaps int the total es pid to nit lead counel as eutof «muss setemeatnegtted between ‘ose counsel and the defendant, reasoning tit theese “gual ston. Isl oo early co sy Whether such a prac wil Become emnon in nots mas ations Financing arrangoments become ven more complicsted when class and non-las complains ae fed at he neption of mas fort igaton and ‘omolidatd ina single court before a snl judge. In sch insta 2 jndge may appoint a plant szringcommitos comprising both putative ‘se couse and Lo fms representing angrepstd paint cane To instances whea such tigation certo forthe prpones of clas ele: met tbe judge's attorney fe order may avard cls cowie an als impos limits onthe sare contingency fo lawyers may take fom ast ‘member compensation fom the coamoa and 4. DOUS LEGAL FINANCING RULES LEAD TO EXCESSIVE LITIGATION? ‘The popular vow in many cles outside he US that the Americ gs Sinancing stem produces excenveHipation. To ext this asampton one seeds to kno (2) How smc civ igation thre in the US? (©) How much dofinansng rules coauibute to explaining the amount of ligation? (©). Andis the amount of igation nthe US exces’ ‘The answers to questions | an 2 ae mates for empl nays. The snowet to question 3 rogue valve jadgment but too is often ta fopmed int an empirical qustion by comparing US itxtion oiiation tlewhere, apparently on te asturplon tht itgton rates ots he US are approprinte, rather than the converse ‘Given the eteat and heat of the selon regarding Ameria ‘= ‘Bouses it maybe sueprising to dacover tha al her of there questions ‘ue romarkaby dial toaneve, 4A. How Mach Ci tigations Thre in he US? ‘About 17 milion new chil cases were fed in US state court in 206 (Gh latest data availabe) (National Center for State Cour 2007), and pproximately 260000 more were led in federal courts (Administration66 Now endemic gain i Fane (Ofer ofthe US Court 2007. Mos of thes awaits wet in catego that are not the subj of publ pole controversy: mal clans, probate td vate, Soll ins accounted forthe large share of tee sult ‘any of these cms ae collection cases fed by business Viewed cose up the numbers of cil suits led by “gous” Americans that sto a) ‘Sis in which partes chosoUigatea dsputrathe than being required {odoso byw or buemseratic paces ~are nol asdrumatcasoboxvess ‘ute te US assume in 2006, abou 125 milion new contract sus and 400000 now tort ts were fed inthe 34 state tha report detailed ci ‘uelad satstice About 61000 new contact wie 0d 3400 tor ite sete in federal courts daring tbat year. Rounding upto 2 milion to ‘oount for unreported cans, or coutey 6900 mien tis amounts ‘ions percapita. Pat another way, gation was event dinate over ‘he population and over ine, 2 pel American would fs conrset ot tortcltim ce every 30 year ‘Of cours, gation i aot dasbued evel over the county’ popu sn, Indend avaiable evidence suggests tha bubs ee morelikely to ‘le lavouis tha indriuas (Dunworth and Rogers 996; Publ Caen 2004; Galater 2009. To measure dspsion to gat, ie meossary te clit litigation rote Thisi even barder than coating Geet ‘ypesof easesait requires knowing the number of cieumstanesin which ‘people might flea lst. The Best ta om pation rater a he US Fate to persona injury Iigtion, and were collected im 198. Inthe ist ‘baonally representative survey of American who slfere Gan oF ter oss dso sent inj, the Rand Tras for Cl Juste found tat only 19 per eet of aosdena nur vis evn considered luking aby sep o im compenstion fom someone othe an thet ‘own insurer, ad only 10 percent took such a sep, sual consulting a lavyet. Four per cent hired lawyers and two per cet fled lavas (Genser eal. 1991, Fig $2, p12) Even whon th injures were quite ‘serious, viims wee unlkel to eam compesston from others. Only bl of those whos injuries were objectively ated as serous for example le threatening resulting in fong-term impirmen) considered aiming. and 43 per cet of those who reid hospitalization or surgery immed yor subseguent conidered eliming, Only one-third of thos who Uhemelves considered thi inary tobe “extrenly sents! conser Stemlag and only 19 por cea thse somesort of ain a= iy. Beaus milion of American ave wo halt surance or re under inraed and few have adequate dsbity ineurane, in many inances fare to being Habit clas meant the households ha to aboulder = stant fraction ofthe costs of scidetal injury themtes, In the asrezate, at the tine ofthe injury compensation sty, US households The US perpectne ws ud wots ofthe costs of asiental injury ou oftheir own pockets (Gensler eth 1991, .179, 42 Do Legal Wnasing Res plain Litton Behavior? “The reasons forthe ow tiation rats Found in th 1989 survey had ess to do with barrie 1o aces othe egal sytem (ical ng lawyers { represet them gl fi, i oon) than with the wy itis vewet the causes of their acini. A msi of teint wins atiboted hei ecient to some combination of "ul uk’ or shane’ and human teavior and of those who sw a fun cate, more than hall Bmed themes (Hens etal 1981, Table 63, p. 188) Mast of those who tributed the acsient wholly or pari to chance never even coos red chiming. The minority of vicins Who mostly Blamed others for the injury were 12 tines more key o consider claiming than these who ‘mostly blamed thamseves. Yeon a quarter of those who blamed ethers ctl ntted some Sot of claiming behavior, and only one-hit got Soar abo hte Iyer. The 189 survey ofacedental injury vt at not ben rebated ut suds of medial malpractice cimig rejng on ‘eeord data have found simry lw rts of abit caing and tpn toa, een for insanas where media specie beloved that ac elms would be merited (Studd snd Breas 200; Bake 2005) 43 Are US Litigation Rates Bxeesine? “Taken together th data summarid above suggest hat under ordinary ‘éreumstanxs, Americans ae not as prone to igang as many eutside ‘he US sume, Vai cre mitonal compariaons of saining bebvior fe hand to come by. Detail ev caseload data ar oven ls availble futsie she US than within and stad that compare claiming o oppor {unites foe caming are are. A comparion ofthe I989 US data with data roma Similar English survey condvcted sround the same ne ound Similar pattems of claiming y injury drcunstanoes but a substantaly higher rate of claiming by American for automobile acidnt and non. ‘work jars; in contrast, the English survey respondents were more ely han Amecans o claim for loses de to injures at Work. The ate i ference was easly explainable y the diferng structures of workers com etsation in he two jrisditions (Haslet 1991, Figure 5.3, p. 123. ‘Reamparso of the 1989 US chiming snd itgation rates in automobile ‘cients and mor esn! Japanese srvey dts on atomobe acsients {ound thatthe lspanese acsdot veums were more ikl than Americans ‘0 claim compensation from someone ee involed inthe aexien, batrs New vende nfo i ation Bap ‘hat Americas, when they di aim, were more ly totam tower sd th courts (Hensler 209) Tn summary, the avalable data on legal esiming stations other han mass iy do not support the conventional wisdom rearing ‘Amin’ Uigouses, er in absolute terms or by comparion 10 izes of othe nations. Moreover, to the extent hat researcher have been ae expai gation behavior in the US it appears to be more ftroelycorelated withthe ccutraaces of inj than wih che US Tiigatonfinsocing regime. While Armesans may be able to are ey fod ad secre the series of lawyers than czas af other jurisdictions, individal Armeceans thoughts do ntsc otra toward the igaon oes nearly as often ais gecraly belive, In mastinjrycreumstanees, herr, the sory maybe dierent. Tete tas ben no sytematic oa of timing bavi mas injury ste ‘ona the US bu fragmentary data nd sociological ebay sage that sliming rats are higher tam ordinary iigation (Hetsleand Peterson 1993), Sl the abvolte numberof mast tigation cases cass and on clas isnochuge, rave othe otal abe tbe US a joe atm. ‘eoetreve of high-pass prodet delet gsi nthe US ovet ‘he pas 35 yar ened 4 lal (abou 13 annual hat a bos ligated to near completion and an addons dozen oro that appeal tobeinanasceat sage. The cates ranged fom afew thousand plait to hundreds of thousands andthe settlements (when achieved) ranged fom 1 few milion dollars tobilions (Hensier 207). In the US there ste ass fate tatiics on annua classaction Sigs in federal courts but thee are ‘ally no rematc dta on tana ation lings inte 0 sate our, Bocuse the majority ofc iva a fl in tate rater han Federal cout thi means tht ti iia to ema the ttl les ation caseload in the US today. Drawing on dapat sures, Lesinate hat ‘shout 600 unique cass acto us have ee led sulin US federat tnd sate cout inthe pst several years, amounting to es than obe pet ent of alc lavas inthe categorie of eases that typically iver to fla ation: contract, tots and propery (Hensler 2010. 5. CONCLUSION Although I have argued above thatthe US lation Saancing sym oes ot, by isl, cet india to bring ordinary ci ton Ieungustonaiy incentives lawyers to ring cas and mons mses Tigaton. Absent the ote for fe sade proportionate to damages obtained on behalf a dass members andthe potent to true Irs mages for the class —it is unialy hat vigorous cas action practise ‘would survive. And without the possiblity of ageepting lage aumbers ‘finda laims represented oncoming ec contract isu that mas nonclass practice would coniae to Doursh The long itory finda ligation aint tobacco manufactures in he US demon Stats the fity of dispersed Inigation by law frm and inte with limited resourocs aginst determined welsubsized party with mich stake (Rabin and Sogarman 1993). Aloga with otber features ofthe US legal system, leat faning rules inthe US bave enabled class and son-lasiigton, Abst public Bnancng ~ which highly unl or more extensive uw of rate third-party fnascng than has so fat nega the US, the current US lg fee eine i cst the cone tinuaton of sich Nation ‘Shoal social poly sepport the continuation or indo he growth of | clas ane uon-as mas gation? The nnver depends ona sees ofthe merits of lawsuits and the wily of thei outcomes, aswell as ore Fundamental belets about the relaonstip between private and public law. Determining te mis of ay single clas ston turns ou oe ut singly dict although many observers ean eal eee a memory Sta easacion they thought fveiou a close anal ofthe eeu Stancesunderying many class actions ys divided opinions Judaeé up los the merits are inthe ees ofthe eho. Assessment ofthe merit ff clas and pon-las mass iipation generally are even tore aiffclt tnd are shaped vgnieantyby the observe’ pital valu Those who te comfortable eying on market competion and pub elation ‘equate corporate bebiviour, and om corporteHeneonce sud gover: iment welfare programs to compensate cine for oes, plasm ale on lass ecions and other forms of mas itgtion. Thre who ae ks Wiig tots ia the markt corporate store, leplitares and govern Inet bureaucracies re kel to endorse am expansive role for private ass ‘tions and other forms of mass gation. But wile cst ations and on-class mass actions may offer the promis of regulation and ree, the realy of such outzomts is more uncartain. Asening the uty of ‘las ations and mas itgaton generally requises amore comprebensve land more sysematic nls of Iiigation outcomes than chars have conducted io date ‘NOTES 1 Ay Pyne SC S25 2075 ig tet esr pate hss oe sega osNw rede oni et gto Boe sapgrete nator pect rte EES reongs cent oocyte fal prema ts mamunmawers tacts See es Sioa aieen eat Sec cee eee Smenuhnmers siesta nas emai at ieeeeercge cecrcneen senate oes hylan ps spy ap ee seeehiltm rem San Rocchi ‘te Gay Pha es upp 2147 108. Wing 130, Soe ong aoe en 1) 51k eC Ua 19 (eg tht tetra ng re i er oe bine eos mi rei SSE onlay marem age AER Sim elecguereseaets erste ee Seog ae etcetera Seti at nor women Rooter baer a I aco ecteremecceras ee Moire Socerhraneangey ante aueaons ina oscmeeaetcr sete eee eerie ee cetera: Sehpicentoescm me are an ‘Tapuibe Eien fal ta Comper aot Rebun Atomgy he fee See Se Sees eee ve ‘rl Oe No (Amend, ee Bae aml CA Ne 2064-777. DC eRe ere erates cheno EES a certo meg, cae Srceere eee sna ee Sea i ani aparece ne Bee ee er caenmmennatiics Serciamcenesmicniremrenamtemeeerteast Inve Ces Pr. nc 1 Spy 34 40,4 (D, Wyoming 1998), Wale RVSr Arena amin renee es The US prpecne m Ging eso rig pe pening vin meen SSSotepon tad ule Rope REFERENCES Adinitatve Oc of te US Courts 0) il Ri te Utd Sates Cos wm scours pnb ae ep pl es Bry 2010” Anan ut Asoitioe Commision 0 ile Hows 2102 ‘Repo’ wy. ‘Siroretenennaitokah Gone hy ‘Aer To Refom Ancien (2000 *ATRA Ise Colter Sore Rat ‘Retort rpnow at ae a 3 ‘tpn ‘Mis a)“ering Law Piatto Le Cac’, Ny York ‘Bees veme ihn Sd Bakr, To 005, The Mosel Mebacice Mh, Cacao: Univerty of “Cheapo Pe rg, Acndro (207 “The Tala Rar Ese, Sot Coe Jona of “hatin! ae, Sopa awh. aichlgobBar agar Teer tn cee ony 0). Chr Sarna areca ex gohncapatcg “heey bddonnt= ear" (ase a Ber M08). ‘cae, Sapien, Debt Re Hon Jeanie Gros eae M. Sey ‘Mans Sebel, Abn Aaa snd) Sas As (8) iss ‘atin Sst Mone US Ra ‘ce Li Lis Soph td Chen Chibi 2010, Taina Lee ‘Spt: He ota Thing mn sco Ean Sat Gee wnt imines po on > petal Pi ot nr? fan WesiarL avow TIOS ‘Dano Teen Jot Roger (990, Corporation Coe ig Bus “ignin n Fee Cor 71D Low Seca nga BT "be ere ed eae) Mer (23) "Atorney et hn Ati ‘Sedona An Emp Sy penta comol pap aac seein cst on 7 Jay 210, "agi Cone 08 The Sats buco ong MUCaeone “esac ee on 2 J 310) ‘lon, Howard 08), CAPA impact on Cs Aston Lawyer, Urey (Pmt in Revo 86 31 ee Sin Cet (0), Maal fo Compe Lieto Fim, Tat nd Jou Voth 200), gang Soc asic Tregh The "eal Cou Lj Law Ree 3 10-784 Fara inh Hoy Ras ni Rl’! aw ona, "1a beer 08 wv nw coipatiep=1342271101 ceed ‘27 Fa 200m Now end i fang tin Bape Pe 9, ena its A ea ce ee nA Eopaniiceta ria cee ee eto nocectrnam eee eee te CE et nay a ora Sa acco Bee AR reag tren Soir utes abe NGA inti a canter eon a ae ee Geen ieee a ta a ier Fen a ani, Deborah Ran Mask Peterson (193), Untesandng Mae Pool Try Lipton & Soo Lgl Anaya, rst Law an 956-168 enn Debora eal, (1). Const for deel te ‘hed Ser Sea ania, US: Rand ener, Deborah, Neds Ms Pac, Bona: Dombey Mors, Eliabeth ‘ies Seuter Grom aed a Mer to) le acto Deas ‘ing Pie aor Pus Gain Sata Sela US Re Heyes Lam, Rober, requ And Qui, wor coer oa! Et ne ry ot nt ne Fo Engr, Wingen Be US Federal Jc Cee. a ee ey pt a Sa ee ay eater gee tet ‘Shibata ete tensa wera ten ae aa, eo eee os Sop ites a ar NA ae Sein cy egies ies a Sik ce, Csr od Corps Pa Tet ‘Kalalt, ames S Bliabeth M. King, Michael Trayoor, Pati A Ebene and eb cerita ed nee eat EO rer Come a aan Mar La Ree, 185 2, Be : Bae i Poni A pena sei eS ame otra The USperpecine i" Maze, Jmathan sod. Grofiey Miler (1990, “The Pits Atome’s "ols in Cla Acion nd Dusaie Lenton Fameme, Asa and [Recon to Relort, Unnery of Chap Law even Dini oust, Peta," Aeon hat (Fla) OM, I gv ppc ppc oo 7, 200) Malt Sontag (309, "A Nain Ligation Ra ner of Che Low “even 630. ‘atonal Cerf Sate Courts (209, Sate Court Pro Se Sai, 216, ‘re exons op aspubisstomanneproeauncin ima (eres on ly 200 "Nn eter tte Cou (07 Enanisingthe Work he State Cours ‘in skninergD Rearatran fies auning OF eat o0 omGosantscaoeeo0Bon pl aden 210 us rt 9nd gene Lor ein ana i a fis Seria APR HS ae yan a ‘pubicationipublD 28060/pub, deta ap (acoeaed on 27 July 2010) SRS Tat Fin Fe pet ayo Se rca TT, BE serrata tte Se ee rr dig Rater nite rman 9), Sin Pale Lu Pi, sider ceroe : se Oe nes ks nor ‘ue, Dav aod Troyen Brena, (210), Beyond Dead, Reckoning i dy Wy ot. tl Oa che See ES i an eile tetrectian angen 2p ‘Th Great Tak Foe G02 Reot ote Seb Cle Cu pee cet oct a apeaaefoceeres a va Set nu ne ii rn re Se fens eaten eee Sipe fa Seah coe atte eaten ‘us Gorm mooning Oia), Naty Fe pa y acu eke secre wae abn oa SS eos SEES args cee tty tee a SE Se ec hem ass ke Secateate enor amm Now nd nang i gation Erp ma en oe et ee Seamimnceaiene ‘eta Sephn Fom Neel Gap igen we Mt ly ‘tl Stephen Gib), Renaing Ct Ligation, De Pa aw Rese, St