An interesting defense of the class action device

In earlier posts on this blog, I challenged some specific criticisms levied at the class action procedural device.  (See, "'Class' missing in Daily Journal column on class actions" and "Daily Journal Forum column challenges recent anti-class action campaign".)  The blog Disgusted Beyond Belief offers its own critique of several of the most common complaints about the class action device:

[O]ne has to wonder about those who call class actions with settlements frivolous. It is true that sometimes it is cheaper and easier to settle to make a complainant go away than it is to go to trial and win, but the aggregate costs of most class actions are so high that one would think it would always be much cheaper to go to trial if the suit is so weak as to be frivolous. In other words, it is not very likely that a class action suit where there has been a settlement was frivolous - just the opposite, in fact.

("Class Action Lawsuits" (April 21, 2008)

It is true that lawyers typically get anywhere between 30 and 40% of a suit that is done on contingency. But keep in mind that there is also the chance that they will lose and then get nothing. What it means is that the lawyer or law firm assumes the risk of the lawsuit.

(Ibid.)  The rest of the post is a good read, as Disgusted Beyond Belief is not ashamed to express outrage (in an entertaining manner).  I must admit that I did chuckle at the notion of a "right-wing stranglehold on the [mainstream medias]."  I guess many things in life are subjective.

[Via The UCL Practitioner]