Rule 23(a)(4) addresses both the representative and counsel. The representative must have no conflict with absent members and must be willing to prosecute the action. Counsel must be qualified and adequately resourced.
Rule 23(g) separately governs class counsel appointment.
Alternative Names:
Adequacy, Rule 23(a)(4)
Why it Matters?
Intra-class conflicts are the substantive adequacy challenge, and they are decisive where they exist. A representative whose interests diverge from a subgroup, such as present versus future claimants or purchasers of different products, cannot represent both. Amchem and Ortiz established that principle in the settlement class context, and it is the most reliable basis for defeating certification where the proposed class spans genuinely different positions.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What is the strongest adequacy challenge?
Does adequacy address counsel separately?
