While aggregate litigation has become an integral part of the U.S. civil justice system, it is often the cause of intense controversy among the private bar, the bench, and the academy. In 2009, the American Law Institute completed a project on the Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation, whose goal was to identify good procedures for handling aggregate lawsuits. The completion of these Principles spurred a host of reactions from attorneys, judges, and scholars. At a symposium hosted by The George Washington University Law School, the questions that were posed included: What is the optimal level of aggregation? When is class action litigation appropriate? Where did the Principles get it right, and where did they go wrong? The fifteen articles that follow in this symposium reflect the wide range of scholarly views attending class actions and nonclass aggregate litigation. While the Aggregation Project represents a dramatic step forward in our effort to make coherent the procedures by which our courts manage aggregate litigation, many questions remain unsettled and hotly disputed. Much is at stake in this debate, for without effective aggregate litigation procedures, our ability to provide justice efficiently to thousands of claimants with similar claims will remain in doubt.
GW Paper Series
GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-122, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-122
Roger H. Trangsrud, Symposium, Aggregate Litigation: Critical Perspectives, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 293-305 (2011).