Bill Lerach has given millions to major unions and their law firms; they've repaid the favor by hiring him for lucrative securities class-action work at what is apparently supra-competitive rates. (Daniel Fisher, "Bedfellows", Forbes, Feb. 13 (via Lattman)).
What I don't understand: named-plaintiffs and their attorneys have a fiduciary duty to the class. Why hasn't a single unnamed-class member sued Lerach and the unions for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, especially in light of the Lazar allegations? Perhaps already-approved settlements are protected by the res judicata effect of Rule 23, but there are surely settlements pending approval where Lerach could use a taste of his own medicine and face civil discovery, and that civil discovery might merit some Rule 60 motions in the resolved cases. (And do the Rule 60 time limits apply when the parties were not adverse in the original litigation?) Where's the entrepreneurial spirit of the plaintiffs' bar when it comes to actual consumer protection rather than just shaking down corporations?