The most exciting aspect thus far of In re Flint Water Cases, Case No: 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM, presently before U.S. District Court Judge Judith E. Levy in the Eastern District of Michigan is the bruising battle between interim co-lead class counsel, Theodore J. Leopold and Michael L. Pitt, and co-liaison counsel for the individual cases pending before the court related to the “Flint Water Crisis,” Hunter Shkolnik.

Competitive Tensions

It is not uncommon for there to be competitive tensions between counsel in class action litigation (see Dickerson, “Class Actions: the Law of 50 States,” Law Journal Press (2018) 4.03[8] (Competing Class Actions)) or between class counsel and counsel representing individuals. For example, in some mass tort class actions the individual damages may be great enough to warrant individual representation which may result in competition with counsel seeking to represent a class. See, e.g., Askey v. Occidental Chemical, 102 A.D. 2d 130 (4th Dept. 1984) (Love Canal lawsuits; 23 non-class actions pending on behalf of 43 plaintiffs; class certification denied)]. Such competitive spirit may lead to disputes between counsel, usually over fees. See, e.g., Sternberg v. Citicorp Credit Services, 110 Misc.2d 804 (Nassau Sup. 1981)(“There is then a delicate balance to be maintained by the courts, lest the image of the class action lawyer as a champion of justice becomes tarnished and tawdry … . While there was little duplication of services, there was an abundance of time spent on barnyard scrambling for recognition.”); Campbell v. Fireside Thrift Company, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 216 (Cal. App. 2004) (“This appeal calls upon us to resolve yet another internecine dispute between counsel over attorneys fees.”).

Motion for Replacement