“The trial court apparently believed that any risk to the class was resolved simply by precluding Chatman from serving as class counsel, without discussing the relationships between Chatman and the other attorneys named as class counsel. We disagree. Given the identified conflict involving Chatman, we cannot say it was reasonable to permit her law partner at the Community Lawyers firm, Wood, to remain as class counsel. Further, we are troubled that the court failed to conduct an adequate factual inquiry to assess whether the other attorneys could remain as class counsel, given their relationships with Chatman,” Judge Aurelia Pucinski said.
“The trial court apparently believed that any risk to the class was resolved simply by precluding Chatman from serving as class counsel, without discussing the relationships between Chatman and the other attorneys named as class counsel. We disagree. Given the identified conflict involving Chatman, we cannot say it was reasonable to permit her law partner at the Community Lawyers firm, Wood, to remain as class counsel. Further, we are troubled that the court failed to conduct an adequate factual inquiry to assess whether the other attorneys could remain as class counsel, given their relationships with Chatman,” Judge Aurelia Pucinski said.
