• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

Andrew Corzo, et al. v. Brown Univ., et al., Case No. 22 C 125, 2026 WL 1536815 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2026)

By Christine Kim (Law Clerk)

The Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification after a previous decision found that the former proposed class counsel made misrepresentations regarding the fee arrangements. Andrew Corzo, et al. v. Brown University, et al., No. 22 C 125, 2026 WL 1536815, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2026). The district court had previously held that the original proposed class counsel had made or tacitly participated in misrepresentations to the court regarding fee arrangements with a litigation funder. Id. The firm whose fee arrangements had been misrepresented withdrew from consideration as class counsel. Id. The plaintiffs have proposed appointment of Steven Molo and MoloLamken LLP as lead class counsel. Id.

Defendants argued that the class should not be certified because of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s misrepresentation. Id. at *2.Additionally, the defendants expressed concerns about prejudice to the class, arguing that the false statements about the contingent nature of GLC’s work are linked to excess-billing issues and hourly-rate issues. Id. In a previous decision, the court found that denial of certification would reward defendants at the expense of those that were harmed by counsels’ improper actions, which would give defendants windfall. Id. The court found that the breach of candor was significant, and impaired trust in a significant way. Id. at *4. However, the court found that the misconduct did not prejudice the class and therefore did not warrant a denial of class certification. Id. at *5. Additionally, the court found that the proposed new lead class counsel is adequate as class counsel within the meaning of Rule 23(a). Id.

Defendants also raised three separate points to deny class certification. Id. First, defendants argued that the Court gave plaintiffs and remaining counsel an adequate prior opportunity to correct the potential flaws from the previous class counsel configuration. Id. The court responded that there was no logical reason why only one proposal for appointment of class counsel should be permitted, especially if the same logic is not applied to the appointment of  class representatives. Id.

Second, the defendants argued that Berger and FNF’s involvement with identifying, screening, and selecting additional counsel tainted the new proposed lead counsel and the process was flawed. Id. at *6. Third, the defendants argued that there was lack of involvement up front by the named plaintiffs in the selection process. Id. The court addressed both points, holding that it was not realistic to expect named plaintiffs to be able to find lead counsel for a putative antitrust class action of the magnitude of this case given the state of litigation. Id. The court also noted there was no evidence that FNF and/or Berger sought lead counsel who would bend to their will or act in a subordinate matter. Id. Drawing on its own experience “during its time in practice”, the court explained that given the stage of litigation, the lawyers involved typically understand that the trial attorneys brought in to take over require serving in a lead and independent role even though there were other attorneys involved from the outset. Id. The court found that MoloLamken would be able to serve in this capacity given their experience, and were well suited to take over as lead counsel, act independently, and have final decision-making authority. Id.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Id. The court certified a class consisting of persons who have during the “class period” (a) enrolled in one or more of defendants’ full-time undergraduate programs, (b) received at least some need-based financial aid from one or more defendants, and (c) whose tuition, fees, room, or board to attend one or more of defendants’ full-time undergraduate programs was not fully covered by combination of any types of grant or merit aid in any undergraduate year. Id. Steven Molo and MoloLamken LLC were appointed as lead counsel for the class, and Freedman Norman Friedland LLP and Berger Montague PC were appointed co-counsel for the class. Id.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: July 2026