Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

New York Legal

  •  
  •  

Emerging consensus: Dodd-Frank protection extends to SOX whistle-blowers  read more »

Is long-running pollution 'an event'? 3rd Circuit says yes in CAFA case  read more »

Shuttered FrontPoint hedge funds sue Libor banks for $250 mln fraud  read more »

Marketing Popup

Can federal judges order law firms to promote diversity?

12/19/2011 COMMENTS (0)

Who could argue against the laudable goal of racial and gender diversity in class-action litigation? Ted Frank, that's who.

The class-action gadfly from the Center for Class Action Fairness has filed a brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that challenges U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr.'s approval of the settlement of an antitrust class action against the satellite-radio giant Sirius. Frank's brief outlines the many, many ways in which he believes Baer erred in approving the deal, which Frank contends is worth nothing to Sirius subscribers. Most of his arguments are familiar objections to a settlement that doesn't confer a cash payout to class members.

But the last of Frank's points is provocative indeed. He argued that when Baer appointed class counsel, he violated the U.S. Constitution by ordering the law firms to include minority and female lawyers on their litigation teams. Baer's imposition of quotas, Frank asserted, is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent on racial preferences -- not to mention an improper manipulation of the class's representation.

"The interests of the class are to obtain the best result possible at the lowest cost in attorneys' fees," the brief said. "The fact that class counsel must comply with quotas and choose case staffing based on race or gender infringes on their duty to the class by impermissibly altering their legal obligation under class action law and may interfere with their ability to provide the best representation for the class."

Baer has been calling on class counsel to include minority and women lawyers on their teams since 2007, when he included that requirement in the order appointing firms to represent a class suing JPMorgan Chase. Frank said in an interview Friday that the judge's order may be a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, just as excluding jurors from a trial on the basis of their race is unconstitutional. "We have lots of precedent that the judicial system is supposed to be above this," he said. "It's counter to what America stands for."

Frank said he understands the "certain sensitivities" in challenging a judge for encouraging diversity, and is risking "ad hominem attacks" for taking this stand. But he said his client, whose wife and child are Hispanic, "understands the importance of a government that is race neutral."

The Center for Individual Rights will be filing an amicus brief at the Second Circuit backing Frank's assertion that Baer's order is unconstitutional, according to general counsel Michael Rosman. "The court has asked class counsel to make sure that lawyers assigned to the case reflect race and gender metrics," Rosman said. "That a part of the U.S. government instructing private entities to use race in a decision process. ... Judge Baer has no good reason for that, or if he does, he has not specified that reason."

But class counsel James Sabella of Grant & Eisenhofer said that Frank's argument is fatally flawed: Lawyers for the class would have been a diverse group regardless of Baer's instruction. "Judge Baer didn't order anybody to do anything," Sabella said. "The firms involved in this case have diverse workforces. ... The fact is, we had a lot of women on the team because we have a lot of women lawyers." Sabella called Frank's constitutional challenge "bizarre to raise on appeal."

Sabella explained that because Baer's call for diversity had no impact on the way the case was litigated or the fees class counsel were awarded, it would be perverse to overturn the agreement on those grounds. "What would [Frank] want -- that we redo the case except this time we staff it with all white men?" Sabella said. "[Frank] has a very conservative political agenda. This appeal reveals more about his agenda than about the case."

I left a message with Sirius counsel Brian Grube of Jones Day but didn't get a response. I also called Baer's chambers but didn't hear back from the judge. Frank previously challenged Baer's diversity order in the lower court, but Baer did not address the point when he approved the Sirius settlement over objections by Frank and several other class members.

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

Follow Alison on Twitter: @AlisonFrankel

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters