1st ICAI 2020

International Conference on Automotive Industry 2020

Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic

typically as, for example, buyers of an identical vehicle, clients of a particular service or lessees of vehicle, etc. The raison d’ être of the opt-out mechanism is based on eliminating psychological hesitation in minor claims where the rational apathy problem in access to justice is well- documented. This concept, as the critics traditionally object, on the other hand ignores the fact whether or not in each individual case the aggrieved party would realistically wish to claim damages. The principal dilemma of the rational apathy considerations is manifested as a clash of paternalism and principles of individual responsibility. The main two categories of risks in the ACP opt-out implementation were identified as: the abuse of the system to the detriment of the defendants and the overburdening and potential technical collapse of the court system. The danger of abuse by plaintiffs results mainly from the consequences of the large-scale disclosure obligation and reputation-risk based blackmail. In addition to that, the concerns of problematic court administration of large-scale collective proceeding arise, and panic of overburdening spreads. The fundamental rights of all group members to be heard together with their document review right would especially risk paralysing the procedure and has to be carefully balanced with the access to justice concerns resulting from the limitation of the practical implementation of these rights. The potential consequences of the opt-out system are still raising the questions concerning the appropriateness of implementation of the opt-out schema. The perils and expected overall effects of this principle is still subject to passionate political and legislative clashes. The chance of elimination of the whole opt-out system from the final version of the ACP is therefore still relatively high. 3.5 New representation paradigm The 2020 ACP version enlarged the mandatory legal representation by attorney to all plaintiffs. This independent legal profession is subject to regulation both by the state and the self-governing Bar Association. The role of control would importantly increase in the collective proceedings mainly due to the modification of the lawyer-client relationship and importantly also in the new organisational-managerial character of the lawyer’s involvement in handling cases of extremely large scope and value. In contrast to the individual cases the plaintiffs’ lawyers will be responsible for collecting evidence in support of all members of the represented group, dealing with the group members’ motions and proper distribution of information among all group members including the potential group members in specific cases. The burden of responsibility in light of the above would inevitably result in the rise of new administrative, technical and business models of legal services. The rise of specialisation, implementation of Big Data technologies, new strategies and forms of media communication, new professional insurance products and the large involvement of financial groups in general is reasonably expected (Klonoff and Herrmann and Harrison, 2008). The specific position of the lawyer in collective proceedings will demand not only a new level and quality of service in the terms of professional skills, but importantly also with regard to moral standards of loyalty and confidentiality (Moore, 2003). Regarding the defendants’ significant economic power, the upcoming collective proceedings can thus

94