Show simple item record

dc.contributor
dc.contributor.author Gold, Russell M.
dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-06T14:54:04Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-06T14:54:04Z
dc.date.issued 2017-03
dc.identifier.citation 92 Wash. L. Rev. 87 (2017) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/1668
dc.description Volume 92, Number 1, March 2017 en_US
dc.description.abstract Russell M. Gold, Associate Professor of Legal Analysis, Writing, and Research, Wake Forest University School of Law. Abstract: Class counsel and prosecutors have a lot more in common than scholars realize. These lawyers have clients, but their clients are diffuse and lack a formal decisionmaking structure. Because of the nature of their clients, class counsel and prosecutors have to make decisions for their clients that one would ordinarily expect clients to make—and indeed that legal ethics rules would expressly require clients to make in other contexts—such as decisions concerning objectives of representation or whether to settle or plead guilty. Both complex litigation and criminal law scholars recognize that these lawyers’ self-interests diverge from their clients’ interests. But the complex litigation and criminal law literatures discuss the ensuing accountability problem solely in their own spheres. This article considers the insights about accountability that complex litigation can learn from criminal law. More specifically, the article argues that although there are real differences between the two systems, these differences do not justify the completely different approaches to accountability that the two contexts employ. Rather, the comparison suggests that internal checks within class counsel’s firm, between plaintiffs’ firms, or between third-party funders and class counsel can improve accountability, much as internal checks improve accountability within some prosecutors’ offices. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Article en_US
dc.title [92WashLRev0087] “Clientless” Lawyers en_US
dc.title.alternative “Clientless” Lawyers en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2017 by Washington Law Review Association. en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account