Murray Dep. Tr. 92:4-6.) Murray’s erroneous belief that a company is never justified in accessing a consumer report (id. at 99:19-99:24) will, if anything, ensure that he will vigorously pursue the class action. We are persuaded by Murray’s deposition testimony that Murray possesses a sufficient understanding of .the legal basis for his suit to adequately represent the class. The Court turns next to the question of whether Murray sufficiently understands that a class representative must protect the class against an award of excessive attorney’s fees. As explained above, a class representative must protect the interests of the class, placing them above his own personal interests and the interests of class counsel. See Crawford v. Equifax Payment Servs., 201 F.3d 877, 880 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Part of his duty to protect the class
holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class recognizing that where representative plaintiff and other members of class share an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims particular differences in amount of damages claimed or of availability of certain defenses against class representative may not render his or her claims atypical holding that a private party could pursue a representative action on behalf of others under the ucl only if the party met the requirements for a class action holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class