In cases where the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation (JPML) has consolidated both class actions and mass tort cases in the same multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding, a critical question arises regarding the leadership structure for that MDL—should leadership be composed of an undifferentiated group of counsel who have, collectively, asserted claims on behalf of individual personal injury plaintiffs and also on behalf of putative classes, or should leadership be tracked such that separate leadership is appointed for the individual and class claims? Going one step further, if an undifferentiated group is appointed, should appointed counsel be allowed to represent both individuals and the putative class? Or if leadership is tracked, is it permissible for any of the appointed counsel in one track to represent clients in the other track?

Certainly, all appointed counsel must work together to advance overlapping litigation needs, such as discovery. And, given the defendant’s certain interest in finality, all counsel have the same interest in bringing the entire case to a successful conclusion as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, consumer class litigation presents different needs than personal injury litigation. As such, this article argues that MDL leadership should be tracked, and counsel appointed within each track so that each case type receives its own designated advocates in the leadership structure.