Trial Lawyers

see class action?   tort? ATRA

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/trial-lawyers-inc-think-globally-sue-locally-JC.pdf

james R. Copland is a senior fellow and director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute. In those roles, he develops and communicates novel, sound ideas on how to improve America’s civil- and criminal-justice systems. Copland has testified before Congress as well as state and municipal legislatures, and he has authored many policy briefs, book chapters, articles, and opinion pieces in a variety of publications, including the Harvard Business Law Review, Yale Journal on Regulation, Wall Street Journal, National Law Journal, and USA Today. Copland speaks regularly on civil- and criminal-justice issues; has made hundreds of media appearances in such outlets as PBS, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg, C-SPAN, and NPR; and is frequently cited in news articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, The Economist, and Forbes.

In 2011 and 2012, he was named to the National Association of Corporate Directors “Directorship 100” list, which designates the individuals most influential over U.S. corporate governance. Prior to joining MI, Copland was a management consultant with McKinsey and Company in New York. Earlier, he was a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Copland has been a director of two privately held manufacturing companies since 1997 and has served on many public and nonprofit boards. He holds a J.D. and an M.B.A. from Yale, where he was an Olin Fellow in Law and Economics; an M.Sc. in the politics of the world economy from the London School of Economics; and a B.A. in economics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Scholar.

tABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Localities as Well as States Shaping National Economic Policies Through Litigation, with Lawyers Expecting Big Paydays 5 Smoking Guns: The State and Local Lawsuit-Industry Business Line Begins 7 Uncertain Climate: States and Localities Sue over Global Warming 9 Sue for the State, Work for the Billionaire 10 Sue for the State, Profit for the Lawyer 11 Litigating Drug Rehab 12 Inverting the Federalist Model 13 Reining in the New Antifederalist–Trial Lawyers, Inc. Alliance 14 Acknowledgment and Endnotes

INVERTING THE

FEDERALIST MODEL

Aside from the perception of conflict inherent

in state and local lawsuits that enrich private

litigants—or effectively cede the state’s business

to attorneys paid by outside billionaires—most of these

state and local lawsuits also invert the normal federalist

structure. When he announced New York City’s litigation

against oil companies in January 2018, Mayor Bill

de Blasio was unabashed in asserting authority over the

most global of policy issues:

“We never make the mistake of waiting on our national government to act when

it’s unwilling to. This city is acting. We want other cities

to act.”57 The problem, of course, is that de Blasio was

never elected by a national constituency.

In some cases—as in the opioid lawsuits and the

multistate tobacco litigation that formed the template

for this litigation industry line of business—most, if

not all, states join the fray. But even when states and

localities unite their cases for strategic purposes, they

often assert different theories and interests and fight for

the spoils.

The emergence of local government plaintiffs

complicates these matters even more; some of the

state plaintiffs in opioid litigation have objected to local

governments’ involvement precisely because they want

to retain more settlement proceeds themselves. One

federal judge overseeing the cases recently characterized

the mess as a “family feud” between “cities and counties

and the states that they sit in.”58

Cases settle largely because of the massive potential

damages at risk, not because of the legal merits. In the

Alabama drug-pricing litigation farmed out to Beasley

Allen, three companies decided to roll the dice and take

the state to trial. They ultimately won their case; the

Alabama Supreme Court observed that there was no

evidence that the companies had made any misrepresentations

and that nothing prevented the state from negotiating its

pricing with the companies in any event.59 The

supreme court’s judgment reversed earlier jury verdicts

totaling almost $340 million, highlighting why so many

other companies had been willing to settle.

These issues are particularly acute when lawsuits

are premised on nebulous

“common law” theories

like public nuisance,

which predate the modern regulatory state. As

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed for a unanimous

Supreme Court in rejecting federal-law public-nuisance

litigation to regulate climate change, “judges lack the

scientific, economic, and technological resources an

agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.”60

The problems are also pronounced when addressing

complex problems like opioid addiction.

Lawsuits for money damages also encourage outside

private lawyers to prioritize payouts over solutions.

Similar temptations abound for state officials when

they can hold on to settlement dollars to pad their

agency or departmental budgets or allocate their budget

dollars without legislative oversight. Indeed, some local

plaintiffs have argued that they need to file their own

opioid suits precisely because state attorneys general in

earlier litigation misappropriated settlement proceeds.

There is a reason that federal and state constitutions

give the power to tax to legislatures, not to the executive

branch or courts. There is also a reason that governments

no longer “contract out” tax collection to private

collectors who retain a share of the proceeds.

Moreover, not all cases are like tobacco or opioids,

where states and localities are mostly jostling for their

cut of the action. In other cases—as in lawsuits against

gun manufacturers and energy companies linked to

carbon emissions—a smaller fraction of states and municipalities

get involved, as political leaders from other

locales with different public views eschew the litigation

or file briefs on the other side. As de Blasio suggested, 

state and local officials are often overtly trying to

win policy debates through large-scale litigation—in a

direct end run around Congress, which is vested with

interstate regulatory authority by the Constitution.

reining in...

Is there a path forward? In general, state attorneys

general have broad “police powers.” However, Congress has the power to preempt states from action

in fields, as it did with antigun litigation, consistent

with its power to regulate interstate commerce. Climate

change may be an area in which Congress should pursue a similar approach.

Even when Congress would prefer a role for the states,

there is no reason generally to enable state-led shakedown lawsuits under federal law. Unfortunately, many

federal statutes do just that: they empower states to

enforce federal regulations through private “rights of

action,” without any limitation on contracting the job

out to private attorneys.61 Rather than inviting plaintiffs’ lawyers to approach state officials to file damages

suits on states’ behalf, Congress should require transparent hiring principles that deter abuse when states

enforce federal law.62

Although states may have little incentive to limit their

own officials’ interference with other states’ policy

prerogatives, state legislators should seek to cabin the

discretion of attorneys general and other state elected

officials to contract their services with private lawyers

on contingent-fee contracts—or to delegate state enforcement to “volunteer” attorneys paid by third-party

sources. The multistate legislative-drafting coalition

American Legislative Exchange Council has promulgated a model bill, the Private Attorney Retention

Sunshine Act,63 to that end. Other similarly intended

legislation also exists, and several states have enacted

variations.64 State legislatures should also consider legislation

limiting localities’ ability to engage in such litigation—often in serious tension with state interests.65

return of the bogeyman:

https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/judge-new-york-climate-change-lawsuit/

no lnx

ENERGY

Judge Tosses Out New York City’s Climate Change Lawsuit

Daily Caller News Foundation

MICHAEL BASTASCH

CONTRIBUTOR

July 19, 2018

A federal judge tossed a lawsuit New York City brought against five major oil companies, demanding compensation for the alleged damages from man-made global warming.

“The Court recognizes that the City, and many other governmental entities around the United States and in other nations, will be forced to grapple with the harmful impacts of climate change in the coming decades,” U.S. District Judge John Keenan ruled on Thursday.

“However, the immense and complicated problem of global warming requires a comprehensive solution that weighs the global benefits of fossil fuel use with the gravity of the impending harms,” Keenan ruled.

“To litigate such an action for injuries from foreign greenhouse gas emissions in federal court would severely infringe upon the foreign-policy decisions that are squarely within the purview of the political branches of the U.S. Government,” Keenan wrote for the court.

It’s the third such lawsuit brought against oil companies ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips. A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California struck down identical lawsuits in June brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland.

Trial lawyers with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP handled climate lawsuits on behalf of the two California cities and New York City in exchange for a percentage of any winnings, called a contingency fee. (RELATED: Trial Lawyers Handling Cities’ Global Warming Lawsuits Stand To Make Billions)

Hagens Berman stood to earn billions of dollars in contingency fees depending on the total winnings, from a favorable judgement against oil companies. The three cities claimed billions of dollars worth of damage from global warming induced by fossil fuels.

Cities and trial lawyers argue the alleged effects of global warming, including sea level rise and extreme weather,violate public nuisance laws. Cities want oil companies to pay for past damages and future mitigation projects.

However, two judges have shot down this argument this year. Both judges found the Clean Air Act supplanted common law on global warming nuisance complaints, and ruling otherwise would circumvent elected officials.

“Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government,” Keenan wrote.

At least a dozen state and local governments have filed suit against fossil fuel companies over global warming since 2017, including six California cities and the state of Rhode Island. (RELATED: Trial Lawyers Are Behind Rhode Island’s Global Warming Lawsuit Against Big Oil)

Those lawsuits are also being handled by trial lawyers in exchange for a percentage of any winnings.

Hagens Berman, for example, is also handling a climate lawsuit against oil companies brought by King County, Washington. (RELATED: Washington Joins Growing List Of Locals Suing Oil Companies Over Climate Change)

“This case is, fundamentally, about shifting the costs of abatement back onto the companies,” reads King County’s complaint. “After all, it is Defendants who have profited and will continue to profit by knowingly contributing to global warming, thereby doing all they can to help create and maintain a profound public nuisance.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Tags : energy new york city u s district court

11 21 grab acsh

Health Scares Vs Health Threats

Thank You, Trial Lawyers, For Protecting Us from the Scourge of Baby Powder

:{

}:

Scientists say that talcum baby powder doesn't cause cancer. Trial lawyers say it does. As usual, the lawyers win. Scientists, common sense, and Americans lose.

Read more

Coronavirus: Fear of a Pandemic, or a Pandemic of Fear?

We must eliminate both. Here's one group's plan to do that.

Read more

95% of Baby Food Tainted with Toxic Metals? Don't Panic

The Centers for Disease Control says that the “American food supply is among the safest in the world.” But a read of some recent news reports about toxic metals in baby food may have you feeling somewhat concerned. So what's really the state of the supermarket aisle? Let's take a closer look.

Read more

Everything Goes to Pot: Myths Are Driving FDA, CDC Vaping Policy

While an investigation is underway into the exact nature of the problem, so far the likeliest explanation is that improper use of vaping devices has led to illness, or the death, of some users. But that sort of nuance isn't governing the thinking of the FDA or CDC officials, both of which are allowing myths and fearmongering to drive their policies and public statements.

Read more

Precautionary Principle:We Must Ban Driving to Whole Foods

Better safe than sorry. That's a great lesson for a child when a parent explains why she should wear a helmet when riding her bicycle. But that refrain makes for terrible public health policy.

Read more

CDC Misleads by Calling E-Cigarettes a 'Tobacco Product'

The CDC says "tobacco use by youth is rising." If that were to be true, it'd be horrible -- but it's not. Cigarette use is down. The only reason the CDC can make this claim is because the agency considers e-cigarettes and vaping devices -- which only contain nicotine -- to be tobacco products. This is misleading and undermines public health.

Read more

AAAS Runs Dishonest Glyphosate Story, Then Deletes It. Is Politics to Blame?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is one of the foremost pro-science organizations in the world. Not only does it advocate for good science and science policy, it publishes Science, the prestigious journal read globally by millions. Unfortunately, AAAS has gotten a bit weird in recent months.

Read more

UK Parliament Endorses E-Cigarettes to Help Smokers. Will U.S. Follow?

U.S. public health agencies struggle to endorse an obvious solution to a true public health menace. Hopefully, the UK Parliament will provide a much-needed boost to the forces of common sense.

Read more

Glyphosateand Pesticides: Et Tu, Live Science?

Normally a reliable source of information, Live Science published an article that is a dream for anti-pesticide and anti-chemical fearmongers.

Read more

CNN's Christiane Amanpour Misleads on Flint Water Crisis [recall BSS elsewhere on pb]

The recent reporting on Flint's water crisis by CNN's Christiane Amanpour has a tenuous grasp of the data and the reality.

Read more

New Study Refutes the 'Wine Will Kill You' Nonsense

A few weeks ago, a paper claimed that an extra glass of wine will shorten your life. The story circled the globe in minutes. A new paper, with better methodology, concluded what we all knew: Moderate alcohol consumption can be integrated into a healthy lifestyle. It, however, won't receive nearly as much attention as the sensationalist report. Such is the power of the academic PR hype machine combined with a gullible, sensationalist press.

Read more

Diarrhea Outbreaks: A Glimpse into Anti-Vaxxer Utopia

Despite the reality of measles, rotavirus, and a plethora of other infectious diseases, there's yet another anti-vaccine movement afoot in California. And its aim is to turn the clock back to the 10th Century.

Read more

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065

2016

Senate Majority PAC $250,000 $0 $250,000

Women Vote! $250,000 $0 $250,000

House Majority PAC $200,000 $0 $200,000

For Our Future $150,000 $0 $150,000

Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $125,500 $5,500 $120,000

Priorities USA Action $100,000 $0 $100,000

American Bridge 21st Century $60,000 $0 $60,000

America Votes Action Fund $50,000 $0 $50,000

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $35,253 $5,253 $30,000

Democratic Party of Illinois $25,000 $0

 Senate Majority PAC$250,000$0$250,000 Women Vote!$250,000$0$250,000 House Majority PAC$200,000$0$200,000 For Our Future$150,000$0$150,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte$125,500$5,500$120,000 Priorities USA Action$100,000$0$100,000 American Bridge 21st Century$60,000$0$60,000 America Votes Action Fund$50,000$0$50,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte$35,253$5,253$30,000 Democratic Party of Illinois$25,000$0$25,000VIEW ALL CANDIDATE RECIPIENTS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_Justice

The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) is a nonprofit advocacy and lobbying organization for plaintiff's lawyers in the United States.^[1] AAJ's stated mission is to "promote a fair and effective justice system."^[2] Focused on opposing tort reform, the organization is one of the Democratic Party's most influential political allies.^[3]

Contents

  [hide] 

• :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{History:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Activities:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{See also:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
• :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links:(style="display:table-cell"):}:

History

In 1946, a group of plaintiffs' attorneys involved in workers' compensation litigation founded the National Association of Claimants' Compensation Attorneys (NACCA). As their work broadened beyond workers' compensation, in 1960 the NACCA changed its name to the National Association of Claimants' Counsel of America, and four years later, to the American Trial Lawyers Association.^[4] In 1972, these groups merged as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA). In 1977, ATLA's headquarters moved from Boston to Washington, D.C.^[5]

In 2006, ATLA became the American Association for Justice (AAJ). Around the same time, a group of attorneys quietly began forming a competitor organization to AAJ. The competitor organization called itself The American Trial Lawyers Association, or TheATLA. TheATLA solicited thousands of AAJ's members to join. AAJ filed suit to force TheATLA to drop the name, arguing it was confusing AAJ members and infringing a trademark held by AAJ.^[6]

Activities

AAJ has been behind multibillion-dollar settlements in cigarette cases, millions of asbestos injury claims and lawsuits over McDonald’s coffee.^[4]

The association has been criticized by organizations such as the United States Chamber of Commerce for its role as a special interest and lobbying group promoting the interests of plaintiffs' lawyers.^[7] In 2006, ATLA's membership voted to change their name to the American Association for Justice.^[7][8] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce responded by again criticizing the organization.^[9]

See also

• David Shrager, past president
• Fred Baron, past president
• List of Trial Lawyer Associations

References

1. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Rowland, Kara; Miller, S.A. (September 28, 2009). "Trial lawyers lobby sinks $6.2M in debt". Washington Times. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
2. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Who We Are". American Association for Justice. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
3. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Eggen, Dan (May 2, 2010). "Linda Lipsen to become head of American Association for Justice". Washington Post. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
4. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_Justice#cite_ref-nyt_4-1) Fabian Witt, John (October 24, 2006). "First, Rename All the Lawyers". New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
5. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Official AAJ Website: About the AAJ
6. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Birnbaum, Jeffrey (November 30, 2007). "A Case of Trial Lawyers v. Trial Lawyers". Washington Post. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
7. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_Justice#cite_ref-wvrecord_7-1) Ann Knef (2006-07-19). "ATLA drops 'Trial Lawyer,' adds 'Justice' to name". Retrieved May 15, 2009.
8. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ http://www.sameleopardnewspots.com/pdf/atla-letter.pdf
9. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Same Leopard, New Spots"

External links

• American Association for Justice

Categories: 

• Legal organizations based in the United States
• Law-related professional associations
• Organizations based in Washington, D.C.