MAJOR CLASS ACTION SYMPOSIUM AT UMKC LAW SCHOOL On April 7, 2006, the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law hosted scholars and practioners from all across the country for a class action symposium in honor of the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark class action decision in Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum. The purpose of the symposium was to discuss where class action law is headed in the new millennium. The symposium was organized, chaired, and moderated by UMKC’s own nationally-recognized class action expert, Robert Klonoff, the Douglas Stripp/Missouri Professor of Law. The symposium attracted some of the very best legal minds in America. Dean Suni remarked at the outset of the symposium that “perhaps no more impressive group of class action scholars had ever been assembled in one spot.” The cast of presenters included legendary Harvard civil procedure professor Arthur Miller, two prominent federal judges (Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Lee Rosenthal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas), some of the most prominent scholars from Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Michigan, Duke, UCLA, and Texas law schools, and several of the top class action practicing lawyers in the country. The participants first heard from Arthur Miller, the morning keynote speaker. He argued the Shutts case in the Supreme Court for Phillips Petroleum, and he recounted his involvement in the case as well as his role in drafting Federal Rule 23, the federal class action rule. He amused the audience with the story of how the most controversial provision of the rule—23(b)—was drafted in the bowels of a ferry to Martha’s Vineyard. Other highlights from the symposium included the panel on labor and employment class actions, where UMKC professor Nancy Levit, an expert on employment discrimination law, joined two of the top practioners in the country, Matthew Lampe from Jones Day and Joseph Sellers from Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (who represents the plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart) to discuss the difficulties of certifying employment discrimination class actions and the possibilities for injunctive and equitable relief. The lunch keynote speech was delivered by federal appellate judge Diane Wood, who gave an inspiring talk on the future of class action litigation, both in this country and abroad. The panel on securities class actions was one of the most lively, with Columbia law professor Jack Coffee making a compelling case that the securities class action was badly in need of reform because it has led to neither much compensation to the victims of fraud nor much deterrence of wrongdoers in corporate management. His views were not shared by fellow panelist William Lerach, one of the most successful securities class action plaintiff lawyers in America. Prominent defense securities lawyer Patricia Villareal offered a different lens on the prospects and pitfalls of securities regulation through class litigation. The symposium also heard presentations on the thorny issues of personal jurisdiction, adequacy of representation, and choice of law in class actions (with panelists including UCLA Professor Bill Rubenstein, University of Texas Professors Patrick Woolley and Linda Mullenix, and NYU Professors Geoffrey Miller and Sam Issacharoff); mass torts class actions (with panelists including Duke Professor Francis McGovern, Stanford Professor Deborah Hensler, and practitioners Mark Herrmann and Elizabeth Cabraser); ethical issues (with panelists including Tulane Professor Ed Sherman, Florida State Professor Debra Bassett, and practitioner Edward Bilich); and class action reform (with panelists including Judge Rosenthal, public interest lawyer Brian Wolfman, and Michigan Professor Edward Cooper). The panel on reform addressed the new Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which extended federal jurisdiction to many nationwide class actions that previously could be filed only in state court. One of the more notable developments at the symposium was the number of panelists who thought it might be time to reconsider the venerable 1938 case Erie Railroad v. Tompkins in order to permit federal courts to create a federal common law of torts to resolve nationwide class actions. Professor Stephen C. Yeazell of UCLA pronounced this view “heresy,” but he conceded to the audience—in verse no less—that he too had guilty thoughts along these lines. The conference attracted about 200 attendees from across the United States. Professors Sam Issacharoff and Robert Klonoff, the Reporter and Associate Reporter for the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation, moderated several of the panels. The UMKC Law Review will publish all of the papers presented at the symposium in an upcoming issue. * Brian Fitzpatrick, Olin Fellow at NYU School of Law, contributed to this article.*