So We Agree It’s Price-Fixing, But ...


Recently an experienced attorney with a class action plaintiffs firm responded to our article “Looks Like Price-Fixing Among Class Action Plaintiffs Firms,” in which we observed that a very common practice among plaintiffs law firms looks an awful lot like outright price-fixing.

In dozens of class action antitrust cases, multiple plaintiffs law firms file duplicative cases, with each asserting that it is adequate to represent the putative class — but then, oddly, each refuses to compete for the work by offering to lower its rates, and, instead, the competing law firms agree to simply present the class (and the court) with a single fee proposal. We noted that Sherman Act Section 1 would normally require competitive bidding and also that competitive bidding would make good sense from a policy perspective because it would likely increase the portion of any recovery that went to members of the class and decrease the portion captured by the lawyers.

Article originally published in Law360 on August 18, 2014.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Antitrust Litigation, Antitrust Provisions, Class Action, Price-Fixing

Published In: Antitrust & Trade Regulation Updates, Civil Remedies Updates, General Business Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Baker Botts | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »