SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     Litigation Release No. 15991        /   December 4, 1998

     AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ADDRESSING APPOINTMENT OF MULTIPLE LEAD COUNSEL 
     UNDER THE LITIGATION REFORM ACT: IN RE MILESTONE SCIENTIFIC 
     SEC. LITIG., No. 98-3404 (AJL) (D.N.J.)

          On December 4, 1998, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an

     amicus curiae (or friend of the court) brief in the United States District

     Court for the District of New Jersey in In re Milestone Scientific

     Securities Litigation.  The brief, which was filed in response to a request

     by the court for the Commission's views, addresses the issue whether, and

     under what circumstances, it is appropriate to approve the appointment of

     multiple lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of

     1995.  The brief is available on the Commission's Web site (www.sec.gov).

          The Commission takes the position that courts generally should defer

     to lead plaintiff's choice of counsel and that except in very unusual

     circumstances, courts should not force a lead plaintiff to retain counsel

     it has not selected itself.  The Commission believes, however, that

     particular problems may arise from multiple counsel arrangements, and

     accordingly that the courts should actively exercise their discretion to

     review proposals for such arrangements.  Although appointment of multiple

     counsel may be appropriate in circumstances where a single firm lacks the

     resources or expertise to manage the litigation, appointment of multiple

     counsel can raise significant concerns.  These include impairment of the

     lead plaintiff's ability to manage the litigation and supervise counsel

     effectively, duplication of effort, lack of coordination among counsel,

     delay of the litigation, and increase in attorneys' fees.  The presumptive

     lead plaintiff should provide the court with full information about the

     structure and intended functioning of the proposed counsel group and
                              ======END OF PAGE 1======








     efforts it has made to avoid the potential problems with multiple counsel.

          The Commission argues that multiple counsel may be justified where the

     firms provide resources, skill, experience, or expertise that are necessary

     to manage the litigation effectively for the class.  But the court should

     not rely on, or give weight to, generic asserted benefits of assuring input

     from more rather than fewer class members or lawyers or avoiding disputes

     among competing lead plaintiff movants and among their counsel.

     The Commission also argues that another important consideration in

     evaluating the proposal is the possibility of a conflict of interest

     involving one or more of the chosen counsel.  If the circumstances justify

     particular confidence in the lead plaintiff's independence and ability to

     make choices, then deference to those choices would be appropriate.  Where,

     however, it appears that the prospective lead plaintiff has not played an

     active, effective role in choosing counsel or that the relationship between

     the plaintiff and one or more of its chosen law firms is based on factors

     other than the merits of the firms, then greater scrutiny is warranted.

     Finally, the Commission argues that the court should place appropriate

     conditions on the appointment of multiple counsel and indicate a

     willingness to revisit the issue.
















                              ======END OF PAGE 2======