Abstract
This article examines the inherent tension between the legal system's desire for "global peace" (finality) and the constitutional requirement for adequate representation in collective lawsuits. While Rule 23 class actions provide structural safeguards—such as judicial oversight of counsel and settlement, and opt-out rights—alternative mechanisms like multidistrict litigation (MDL) and parens patriae suits often lack these protections . Using the In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation as a primary case study, the article illustrates how informal, "backroom" leadership selection in MDLs empowers a small circle of elite "repeat players" at the expense of marginalized groups, such as Native American tribes and neonates. The author concludes that prioritizing procedural efficiency over faithful agency undermines the legitimacy of aggregate litigation, calling for redesigned processes that respect individual due process rights, allowing litigants meaningful opportunities to be heard and to dissent.
Repository Citation
Elizabeth Chamblee Burch,
Adequate Representation in Group Litigation
, 86 La. L. Rev. 433
(2026),
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/1742