The Comparative Catalyst: Reforming Graham v. DaimlerChrysler

Consider this scenario: An attorney is contacted by a potential client who claims that he has purchased a product that was falsely advertised by its manufacturer. In researching the claim, the attorney learns that two public agencies have threatened suit against the manufacturer and the filing of a formal complaint appears imminent. The manufacturer has already publicly acknowledged its error and convened a special committee to determine how to make amends, so any complaint would likely be moot and there will be no damages for the plaintiff. Is it in the economic interest of the plaintiff's attorney to file suit against the manufacturer? Is it in society's interest for the plaintiff's attorney to file such a suit? The goal of a sound public policy regarding attorneys' fees should be to harmonize these inquiries as much as possible, but the California Supreme Court's December 2004 decision in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp may produce quite divergent answers.