A judicial task force charged with evaluating the alternatives for selecting lead counsel in class actions got the benefit of different perspectives at its second hearing, held in Philadelphia May 5. Keith Johnson, chief legal counsel for the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, told the Third Circuit Task Force on Selection of Class Counsel that the court's role should be limited to facilitating class counsel selection by lead plaintiffs, or appointing a special master to make the choice if the lead plaintiff fails to do the job effectively. Integrity of the process is better served by keeping the judge in his or her role as the neutral arbiter.
Due process requires nothing less.
But Johnson said fairness dictates that the methods used to select and compensate plaintiffs' counsel be as sophisticated as those applied by the defendants to make their choice of counsel. He outlined the process his organization uses to select lead counsel and the factors it considers. Johnson encouraged the task force to evaluate procedures used by other experienced lead plaintiffs and to commission further academic research on effective methods for obtaining and compensating lead counsel. The tenor of the testimony during the May hearing, which was dominated by members of the plaintiffs' bar was generally more critical of the auction process than testimony during the initial hearing. Auctions Aren't Always Suitable.