Legal ethics, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and the representation of "aggregate rights"

The US Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes has provoked some interesting debate about whether justice is best served through the protection of individual rights or collective rights.  Alexandra Lahav, Richard Primus, and Samuel Issacharoff have offered arguments for what they see as progressive developments in the representation of collective rights.  (Walter Olson, at Cato, has a different view.)  In our field, the represntation of individuals is pretty well understood, while the representation of a class is far more complicated. If the views of the progressives become ascendant, the legal ethics rules would need significant reformation too.