English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Just as war is too important to be left to generals, civil procedure-with apologies to Clemenceau-is too important to be left to proceduralists. 1 Although it would be a serious overstatement to claim that all civil procedure scholars are confined by a tunnel vision focused only on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they have as a group been reluctant to engage explicitly in incentivebased reasoning and seem particularly hesitant to reexamine what they must know to be a noble myth: namely, that the client can and should control all litigation decisions.2 Within an important and expanding context-one that this article will call that of "entrepreneurial litigation"-this assumption of client control simply does not hold. Instead, the relationship of attorneys to clients within this domain presents a classic illustration of market failure: here, the market for legal services. Much of this article will focus

The Regulation of Entrepreneurial Litigation: Balancing Fairness and Efficiency in the Large Class Action