•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Article accomplishes three important and distinct objectives. First, it provides an updated window into the class counsel gender gap. Second, and most critically, it analyzes a to date unexamined data point—MDL class counsel applications. And third, based on its analysis of the data gathered, it demonstrates: (1) female class counsel application rates are correlated with appointment rates and (2) gender equal class counsel applicants’ success rate, suggesting courts are not discriminating against female class counsel applicants. Instead, the class counsel gender gap appears to be a product of the class counsel draft gender gap. To narrow the gap, more women must apply to represent class members. But female candidates must be qualified and meet Rule 23(g)’s adequacy requirements, and they cannot easily attain the experience and financial resources required under the Rule without the class counsel bar’s investment and endorsement. In the recent past, the bar has been motivated by courts’ vocal efforts to appoint diverse candidates, but with courts’ diversity efforts in Constitutional jeopardy, the bar’s incentives to train, retain, and sponsor female candidates will likely decrease. It is up to the class counsel bar now to recognize, as several courts have, the many benefits gender-diverse representation affords class members and class counsel, whose ultimate financial success is tied to the success of the class.

Download

Share

COinS