Over on the Point of Law blog, the Carter Wood of the National Association of Manufacturers points to the current lobbying targets of the American Association for Justice — the trial lawyers’ lobby. There aren’t too many surprises, but it is interesting to look at the list.
Recommended Stories
This cause was formerly championed by former Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. The idea here is to allow more latitude in fishing-expedition civil suits. Two recent Supreme Court precedents (Iqbal and Twombly) effectively prevent some lawsuits from proceeding unless there is a real, plausible case to begin with that alleges specific acts of wrongdoing. Trial lawyers would like to loosen this standard and go back to what has been described as a “sue-’em-all, sort-’em-out-later” system.
The doctrine of “preemption” applies to certain products that are regulated by federal government. Auto manufacturers, for example, cannot be sued over the design of a car (they can still be sued for a defective car) in state court as long as the design follows the federal standards. The idea is that you want the Department of Transportation and not some uninformed jury in rural Illinois telling automakers how strong an impact the roof of a cars should be able to withstand.
Trial lawyers, with a lot of help from President Obama, have been trying to nibble around the edges of preemption in several areas. (They tried to undo it for automobiles last year, and they got a helpful executive memorandum from Obama in May 2009.) The Supreme Court precedent they are seeking to overturn in this area (Riegel) has to do with medical-device makers. The pharmaceutical industry is one of them.
Because if your credit card company can’t make you come to the table in a dispute, you’re more likely to hire a lawyer.
This bill has been kicked around for a long time, according to Wood. I’m not terribly familiar with it.
This is the bill I wrote about a few weeks back, which would put teeth back into federal court sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. AAJ is really looking out for its bottom-feeders by lobbying against it.
Can Congress reassert its constitutional power at the expense of a president whose rulemaking is running amok? Don’t expect this president to sign the bill.
EAJA is intended to help people with legitimate claims against the federal government recoup their legal costs afterward. The idea is that an old lady who doesn’t get her Social Security check shouldn’t have to spend her life savings in litigation against the Social Security Administration in order to get her money.
Unfortunately, EAJA is badly abused by environmental groups who sue over policy matters (wolf endangerment, for example) and then demand $600 per hour in legal fees if they prevail (and sometimes even when they lose).
There is a huge dispute over the Indian Trust Settlement, and just how much the lawyers involved would get to take home. This bill would cap attorneys’ fees at $50 million. They are seeking $223 million, with one attorney claiming to have worked several 4,000-hour year and a few 28-hour days (yes, that’s impossible). A complaint filed this week by the Center for Class Action Fairness accuses them of botching the entire case, forcing their clients into a much smaller settlement than they might have otherwise gotten, and waiving many of the Indians’ unrelated rights unnecessarily.
More money for lawyers? It’s a no-brainer which side AAJ falls on here.
