Broadening the Scope of Judicial Gatekeeping: Adopting the Good Faith Doctrine in Class Action Proceedings
This paper suggests that using the concept of "good faith", as is used in Israeli class action proceedings, could resolve some of the shortcomings in U.S. class action proceedings. There is a vast literature about the abuse of the class action procedure in the United States. Among other problems, scholars lament the extensive filing of meritless class actions in order to extort unwarranted settlements and the so-called "sweetheart settlements", in which class counsel colludes with the defendant to settle meritorious claims for far less than they are worth, in exchange for fees in excess of those he would have expected had the parties proceeded to trial. Yet, there are no satisfactory solutions to the abuse of this procedure. This paper addresses this gap by describing and evaluating a solution that originates outside the United States. Unlike Rule 23, the recently enacted Israeli Class Actions Law includes a good faith requirement as one of the prerequisites to certification. This requirement is used to scrutinize the motives of the representative plaintiff and the class counsel. Israeli Courts will not certify class actions which have been instituted for collateral or illegitimate purposes such as extortion or harming a competitor. The paper suggests that the application of good faith in the U.S. could resolve some of the more significant flaws in the American class action mechanism. In making this argument, the paper also considers both the larger legal and socio-political contexts - specifically the role that litigation plays in the American and Israeli societies.
Judicial Independence and Accountability in Israel
THE judiciary plays a significant role in Israeli society. Indeed, the judicial role in the system of government has increased over the years. The judges enjoy public confidence, are highly regarded in society, and generally maintain an elevated social status. The moral authority of the judiciary has recently been illustrated by the judicial inquiry into the Beirut events of 1982. Following the Kahan Commission Report, the government felt compelled to implement the extremely embarrassing recommendations of the Commission Report even though in law they were not binding on the government. The judiciary cannot properly exercise its functions independently and impartially without adequate safeguards for its independence. The purpose of this article is to analyse the concepts of judicial independence in Israeli law. This includes an analysis of the terms of judicial office, the security of judicial tenure, and the role of the executive in the administration of justice. The opening sections of the article will examine developments in the role of the courts in Israeli society and the constitutional position of the judiciary. No social institution can operate without being answerable to society. The judiciary too must be held accountable. Considerable attention will be paid to analysis of the forms of judicial accountability in Israel.
The criminal justice crisis
Tackling crime will be one of the top priorities for Labour in government, for it is an issue of immense concern to the public. Not long ago crime was seen as something that happened to someone else. Now, particularly since the doubling in recorded crime over the last decade and a half, it is seen as something that affects us all. And it is not just specific crimes which affect our quality of life. The rising tide of disorder is blighting our streets, parks and town centres.