Follow POL on Twitter Our newest featured column is a reprint of a post I did over the summer contrasting the boomlet of alarm over potential favoritism and fee excesses in Justice-Department-directed "corporate monitor" work with the general lack of alarm, in some of the same quarters, over the awarding of government litigation work to outside contingency-fee counsel.
New featured column: "Corporate monitors and double standards"
Related Entries:
- "Attorney fee-only" bankruptcy plans
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Around the web, March 13
- Day v. Persels & Associates
- 0.1% claim rate in "successful" class action
- Asbestos litigation and search-engine optimization
- Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
- That $285 million Delaware award by Strine
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
- Responding to Professor Fitzpatrick on class action fees
- Federal district court dismisses Netflix suit
- Debating attorneys' fees in class actions
- November 23 roundup
- Wal-Mart Settlement Offer: Potentially Pocket Change for Class Member Participants
- Kentucky AG Sued Over Contingency-Fee Arrangement With Private Outside Counsel
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
