Responding to a National Law Journal editorial by Prof. John Coffee that, among other things, apparently took Milberg Weiss to task for using "professional plaintiffs" who had reportedly been the "named plaintiff in at least 500 or more cases," counsel for Milberg Weiss states in this piece that such plaintiffs are actually "good for the system."

Milberg's counsel writes that:

repeat plaintiffs are more than just a fact of life. They are good for the system. This was recognized earlier this year by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Writing for a unanimous panel in Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 434 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2006), Judge Frank Easterbrook categorically rejected the notion that such "professional" plaintiffs are problematic:

"What the district judge did not explain . . . is why 'professional' is a dirty word. It implies experience, if not expertise. The district judge did not cite a single decision supporting the proposition that someone whose rights have been violated by 50 different persons may sue only a subset of the offenders. Neither does GMACM." Id. at 954. And neither, with all due respect, does Professor Coffee.

Yeah, that's the ticket!  "Experience!"  "Expertise!"

Um, are you kidding me?!

And by the way, take a look at the GMAC case cited above.  The plaintiff is woman who, shortly after her debts had been discharged in bankruptcy, received dozens of credit solicitations from GMAC Mortgage and others who allegedly accessed her credit without her consent and without meeting certain statutory requirements.   As the court noted, she "did not accept compensation to put herself in the way of injury."  Rather, the court said, she just "opened the mail as it arrived."

In the paragraph immediately following the one quoted by Milberg's counsel above, the GMAC court then specifically differentiated her situation from that of a professional plaintiff in the securities context:

A person who seeks out opportunities to sue could do so in ways that injure other class members. Consider the investor who buys one share in each of a thousand corporations, hoping that the price of one will plummet and lead to securities litigation. Such a person could be tempted to file suits designed to extract payoffs from the corporation even if the average investor will lose in the process. Congress has responded by insisting that the investors with the largest stakes be allowed to control securities litigation.