Document Type


Publication Date



The idea for this article came from the author's representation of a national non-profit consumer rights organization in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement. The organization's appellate briefs argued that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ views, the settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" (which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)). The district court also deferred to the lawyers' reputations as talented and honest lawyers.

In this article, the author maintains that proper class-action administration demands that in considering whether to approve a class-action settlement, a court should never defer to the views or reputations of the lawyers who are seeking the settlement's approval. Rather, the court should always exercise its independent judgment as to whether the proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court's exercise of independent judgment is needed, the author maintains, to protect the interests of absent class members.

Publication Citation

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 80-90 (2013)