Judge David A. Baker (M.D. Fla.) didn’t appear to be too excited about the prospect of appointing two law firms as co-lead counsel in the Faro Technologies securities class action, commenting that “with each additional cook working on the same culinary masterpiece, the kitchen becomes less efficient, not more so.” If the Court were to follow counsel’s “logic, a hundred firms could bring a hundred different perspectives and insights to the case. This, of course, begs the question,” “is more necessarily better? Or, put another way, how many law firms does it take to represent a Class? The Court is no more convinced that this task is best accomplished by retaining two law firms than it was upon first review of the issue.”
However, and this is a pretty big however, “counsel fares better by focusing on the fact that a sophisticated, experienced Lead Plaintiff made an educated, informed choice to be represented in this litigation by both firms.” “Thus, despite the Court's hesitation to appoint two firms in this relatively small class action, it is not the Court's choice to make, as there is no evidence that the selection is adverse to the interests of the Class.”
You can read In re Faro Technologies, issued April 26, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23500.
Nugget: “The Court notes, however, that impressive biographies of each attorney actually work against the motion. If, as argued, 'each attorney . . . has significant experience prosecuting class action and other complex litigation,' then why are so many of them necessary?”