THE PROPER ROLE FOR COLLATERAL ATTACK IN CLASS-ACTIONS - A REPLY TO ALLEN, MILLER, AND MORRISON

Although Professors Kahan and Silberman would applaud a narrowing of t he collateral attack remedy created by Matsushita II, as suggested by Miller and by Morrison, they argue that the interpretations offered by those two commentators are inconsistent with what the decision actual ly says and with its doctrinal rationale. The Ninth Circuit's reliance on Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts offers no support for a distinction b etween inadequate representation due to structural deficiencies and in adequacy for other reasons. Moreover, the limiting interpretations off ered by Miller and by Morrison would still permit collateral attack in a broad array of cases In this rejoinder, the authors also respond to particular criticisms from Morrison and Alien, and conclude by noting the unanimity among all of the commentators that broad collateral att ack on class actions is undesirable.