South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

Illinois Judge Strikes Medical Malpractice Caps

From ChicagoBusiness.com:

A Cook County judge on Tuesday struck down a two-year-old Illinois law that caps some jury awards to victims of medical malpractice.

Circuit Court Judge Diane J. Larsen ruled that limiting payments for “non-economic damages” such as pain and suffering is unconstitutional. The law caps those awards in malpractice suits at $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million per case for hospitals. There is no cap on economic damages, such as loss of pay.
In her 10-page opinion, Judge Larsen ruled that the law violates the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause — essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages.

The ruling means the case likely will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court as early as next summer. The court has twice before struck down laws that limit payments to malpractice victims: once in the 1970s and again in 1997.

The decision deals a blow to doctors and the hospital industry, which waged a bitter lobbying campaign in 2005 to get the law passed. Facing resistance from the state’s trial bar, they argued that frivolous malpractice lawsuits and runaway jury awards were causing sky-high insurance rates and driving some doctors out of the state.

In a statement Tuesday, the Illinois Hospital Assn. expressed disappointment in the ruling but said it looked forward to a Supreme Court decision. “The law is critically needed to preserve and enhance access to health care for Illinoisans and remains the most appropriate, meaningful and comprehensive solution to address the medical liability crisis,” the statement reads.

Illinois’ trial bar sued last year to have the caps struck down as part of a malpractice lawsuit against Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park in which a baby allegedly suffered brain damage during a botched delivery. That case has not gone to trial.

Source:  "Judge Strikes Down Illinois Med Mal Caps" by Mike Colias , published at ChicagoBusiness.com.

SC Governor Attempts to Interfere with Workers' Compensation Commission

South Carolina Governor Marshall (Mark) Sanford has attempted to exert his will upon the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission.  Basically, he is trying to tell an arm of the judicial branch how to do its job, ignoring the mandates established by the legislative branch when it established the Commission.  The following is an article written by John P. Freeman, who is the John T. Campbell professor of business and professional ethics at the University of South Carolina School of Law, which provides excellent insight and analysis to this situation:

THE GOVERNOR'S INTERFERENCE

We all studied civics in school. We learned about such things as how there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Remember the lesson? We were taught that the legislature writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. This separation of powers was designed to protect citizens from excessive power being wielded by any single branch.

Unfortunately, it appears Gov. Mark Sanford cut class the day the foregoing civics lesson was taught.

His lack of education about separation of powers (or his deliberate disregard for the concept) was shown on Sept. 20 when he promulgated an executive order that directed commissioners on the Workers Compensation Commission to change how they decide cases. He commanded them to strictly use “objective standards” in rendering awards.

His aim was to reduce awards for injured workers, thereby saving money for his political base, namely the business community and insurance companies. What Gov. Sanford sought to orchestrate was a wealth transfer: Workers take less, his political base pays less.

Make no mistake about it. Gov. Sanford, the executive branch’s leader, intended to change the law by manipulation of judges he assumed he could control. We know this because when he signed the order at his press conference, comments made by him and his invited guests, business lobbyists, were captured on videotape. On that tape we find Gov. Sanford billing his “objective standards” approach as adding to the workers compensation law something “that was lacking.” Business lobbyists present at the press conference praised Gov. Sanford for “today... implementing objective standards into the workers compensation system for the first time.”

This new requirement pleased the business lobbyists since the Legislature, the government branch actually empowered to write laws, had refused to enact objective standards in the last legislative session.

To enforce his command that workers comp awards be reduced, Gov. Sanford’s order demanded that each commissioner report to the governor quarterly about adherence to the order’s award-cutting command. Implicit in the reporting requirement was the suggestion that failure to follow directions exposed a recalcitrant commissioner to punishment, either removal or the governor’s failure to reappoint.

One of the lobbyists at the order-signing press conference explained that the governor’s right to pressure workers compensation commissioners to change the law was rooted in a “pretty simple concept.” The commissioners, he explained, “are not judges.... They are part of the executive branch. (Gov. Sanford) is the leader of the executive branch.” Another lobbyist later chimed in that “Even making a decision on whether or not to follow the governor’s executive order is improper because the commissioners are not judges.”

What smug business lobbyists and Gov. Sanford have now learned is that a Workers Compensation commissioner is not a puppet on a string. Each actually is a judge from an ethical standpoint, having been placed under the Canons of Judicial Ethics by the Legislature in 2005. Those ethical precepts demand that commissioners must act 24/7 with impartiality and integrity. They are ethically commanded to be faithful to the law and to disregard outsiders who seek to steer their decision-making.

The commissioners’ high ethical standards prevent them from dispensing favors to special interest groups, even when the governor who appointed them orders them to do so.

Political conservatives decry judicial activism, and Gov. Sanford presents himself as a conservative. But his aim in signing this executive order was anything but conservative. It was judicial activism personified. Gov. Sanford sought to manipulate judges in order to change the law to favor the business community, his political base. In their order flatly rejecting Gov. Sanford’s command, the Workers Compensation commissioners offered the governor a make-up assignment for that civics lesson he seems to have missed years ago. They also provided an example of professional integrity he would do well to emulate.

The rest of us can learn lessons from this episode as well. For one thing, we need to remember that those who seek to manipulate judicial decision-making are not working to serve the common good. Their intent is to benefit themselves, the special interest groups. The Workers Compensation commissioners’ steadfastness proves we have public servants with backbones and 20/20 vision.

Mr. Freeman is the John T. Campbell professor of business and professional ethics at the USC School of Law.

Source:  "The Governor's Interference" by Prof. John P. Freeman, published at The State newspaper.

Proof That Our Tort System Works

Anti-consumer groups like the Pacific Research Institute and Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse, which are funded by big companies, are seeing their weak arguments for tipping the scales of justice in favor of rich CEOs and against citizens get even weaker.

The ruling of a Washington, D.C., judge in favor of the dry cleaners in the now-famous "pants case" is proof positive that the American civil justice system works well as is. In addition, the plaintiff, D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson, was ordered by the judge of the case to pay the defendants' court costs in the outrageous case.

Our civil justice system is designed to protect the rights of all parties, defendants included, and the judge's ruling in this case demonstrates how well the system works to weed-out frivolous lawsuits.

Anti-consumer groups like PRI and AVALA who are the labor behind the CEO-led takeover of the courts don't like that the judge's ruling in this case proves the civil justice system works for consumers who are in the right, no matter if they are bringing or defending a lawsuit. Will these same groups put as much energy and money in broadcasting the result as they did when the case was filed?

The overpaid CEOs of the billion-dollar corporations behind PRI, AVALA and other anti-consumer groups hate to see justice served, especially when it works against them. Is there a need for reform? Absolutely, it's called corp(orate) reform, not tort reform.

Source:  "Pants Case Shows System Working" by Bob Price, President of the Alabama Association for Justice, published in the Montgomery Advertiser.

Settlement Reached in Defibrillator Lawsuit

The maker of a commonly used heart defibrillator has agreed to settle lawsuits filed by thousands of patients who claim they were not informed of potential defects. Parties involved in the cases announced the settlement just two weeks before the first trial involving the defibrillator was set to begin. The $195 million settlement will cover about 4,000 claims filed against the device’s manufacturer Boston Scientific. 

Source:  "Maker Settles Suit on Device for Hearts" by Barry Meirer, published in The New York Times.

Congress Approves Increased Drug Safety Measures

Congressional lawmakers voted last Wednesday to support major reforms of the nation’s drug safety system. House members hope the bill’s passage will prove to be a major step toward improving patient protection and restoring faith in the Food and Drug Administration.  The House bill follows the same basic approach to safety as the previously approved Senate version, but consumer groups said it would give the FDA stronger regulatory powers in some areas. 

Both bills would set up a computerized network to scan medical insurance and pharmacy records for patterns that could signal problems with new drugs. The FDA now relies on anecdotal reports submitted by doctors and drug companies, which are believed to capture only a small fraction of bad drug reactions.  A House-Senate conference committee will work out differences between the two bills, and congressional leaders say they want to send President Bush a final version this summer.

Source:  "House Passes Drug Safety Overhaul" by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, published in the Los Angeles Times.

Side Effect of Acne Treatment Prompts Jury to Award Damages

Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG, the maker of the acne treatment Accutane, will be forced to pay an Alabama man $2.5 million, following a jury verdict this week. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that the drug’s maker failed to sufficiently warn consumers about the drug’s risk of causing inflammatory bowel disorder. Accutane has received more prominent attention in the past for side effects such as birth defects and increased suicidal behavior. 

Source:  "Jury Awards $2.5 mln in Roche Accutane Trial" by Jon Hurdle, published by Reuters.

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Judge Over His $65M Suit Against Dry Cleaners

Washington, D.C., administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. isn't making many new friends with his $65 million lawsuit against a local dry cleaner for losing a pair of his pants. The American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) filed an ethics complaint against Pearson last week with the D.C. Bar.

This isn't the first time Pearson has filed tons of documents and demanded payment in a court case. In 2005, the Virginia Court of Appeals denied Pearson's appeal seeking at least $10,000 in spousal support in his divorce from Rhonda VanLowe, legal counsel for Rolls-Royce North America. Pearson wanted VanLowe to help support him because he was receiving unemployment benefits in 2003 before he was appointed as an administrative law judge in 2005.

Source:  "Ethics Complaint Filed Against Judge Over His $65M Suit Against Dry Cleaners" by Brendan Smith, published at Law.com.

Lawsuit Filed to Overturn New York’s Ban on Metal Baseball Bats

Sporting good manufactures and youth baseball sponsors filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a New York City law that bans the use of metal baseball bats in youth games. Supporters of the ban say that fast flying balls hit by metal bats increase the risk of injury to players.  Similar bans are under consideration in New Jersey where a boy died from cardiac arrest after being struck by a ball that was hit with a metal bat. 

Source:  "NYC Sued Over Metal-Bat Ban" by Larry Neumeister, published in Forbes.

More on Bogus National Chamber of Commerce “Study” / Propaganda Attack Against Civil Justice System

As I previously discussed on this blog, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an updated “study” last week claiming to rank the best and worst state legal systems in America. But as with past editions, this “study” is a survey of corporate lawyers earning millions of dollars defending their CEOs from being held accountable for wrongdoing and negligence. Similarly, any felon would say that the justice system doesn't work. While the Chamber touts this “study,” the facts tell a different story. 

The Chamber's "Study" Is Bogus:

• The Chamber’s “Study” Is Actually a Survey of Corporate Lawyers Working for Multi-Million Dollar Corporations. Instead of attempting to measure the effectiveness of the civil justice systems in each state, the Chamber instead commissioned a poll of senior lawyers and corporate counsels.  These are the very same lawyers who work every day protecting and defending large corporations when they are sued by consumers or employees who have been injured or abused by the corporation.
• The Chamber’s Own Pollster Admitted that There is No Way to Measure the Fairness of a State’s Legal System. Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, the polling firm that conducted the survey for the Chamber, admitted that there is no way to measure fairness of the legal system in each state. According to the Copley News Service, “Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive said the survey is based on the individual responses of the [corporate] lawyers because there is no hard data that can be used to measure the perceived fairness of a state's legal system.”  Nevertheless, the Chamber has mischaracterized the “study” as “rank[ing] the best to worst legal systems in America.”
• After Ranking West Virginia as Having One of the “Worst” Liability Systems, the Chamber’s CEO and Pollster Were Forced to Admit that Only of a Fraction of Those Surveyed Actually Knew Anything About the State’s Court System. When questioned about the methodology of previous versions of the “study” that ranked West Virginia as 49th in the list of state legal systems, the Chamber’s CEO, Thomas Donohue, and the pollster that conducted the survey, Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, were forced to admit that only a fraction of the corporate lawyers surveyed actually knew anything about West Virginia’s courts. According to the Charleston Gazette, “Taylor and Donahue [sic] acknowledged not all of the 1,437 lawyers surveyed knew anything about West Virginia's courts. Taylor said ‘around 107’ said they had direct knowledge of the state. ‘You could argue that's a small sample, but what they keep saying is ‘49th, 49th, 49th,’ he said.”
• Florida Newspaper Criticized Chamber for Mischaracterizing the “Study” in a Television Ad. According to the Tallahassee Democrat , the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform sponsored a television ad in Florida that mischaracterized the results of their “study” of state legal systems. The Chamber’s ad included the line, “[a] recent Harris poll ranked the best to worst legal systems in America.” However, the Democrat reported that this claim was “wrong,” noting that the “ad did not mention the Harris poll was conducted among corporate lawyers who have to defend their clients against civil suits.”

Lawsuits Are Not A Major Concern For Business:

• A Recent Survey Published by the National Association of Manufacturers Found that American Manufacturing Companies Ranked the “Fear of Litigation” at the Bottom of Their Concerns. The National Association of Manufacturers recently released a survey of manufacturers in the United States showing that the “fear of litigation” ranked at the bottom of their list of concerns:

“Please rate the following factors in terms of their negative impact on your company's operations (with 1 representing the greatest negative impact and 10 the least).”

2.9   Cost of non-wage compensation
3.5   Cost of materials used in production
4.0   Inability to raise prices
4.1   Energy prices
5.0   Foreign competition
6.1   Taxes
6.3   Cost of wages
6.4   Shortage of qualified workers
7.4   Regulations/corporate governance rules (Sarbanes-Oxley)
7.8   Fear of litigation

• Survey by Business Week Magazine Found that the Threat of Lawsuits is Not a Major Concern of Small Business Owners. According to a survey published in Business Week magazine, owners of small and medium-sized businesses are generally not concerned about the threat of lawsuits: “One of the survey's more surprising results revealed that tort reform -- particularly limiting class-action lawsuits -- is not a major priority.” The survey found that the biggest threats to their businesses are: (1) Rising inflation, 44 percent; (2) The trade deficit and a weak dollar, 40 percent; (3) Energy shortages, 40 percent; (4) Excessive household and/or corporate debt, 29 percent; (5) The growing federal deficit, 28 percent; (6) Poorly prepared labor force/Shortage of skilled labor, 27 percent.

The Number of State and Federal Tort Trials Is Declining:

• Bush Administration Statistics Show that the Number of Federal Tort Trials is Down Nearly 80 Percent Since 1985. The most recent data from the Bush administration’s Justice Department reported that the number of tort (personal injury) cases resolved in U.S. District Courts fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 2003. In 1985, 3,600 tort trials were decided by a judge or jury in U.S. District Courts. By 2003, that number had dropped to less than 800. 
• The Number of State Tort Trials is Decreasing. According to the most recent statistics from the Bush administration’s Justice Department, the number of tort trials at the state level has decreased. These statistics were compiled as part of the Bureau’s survey of state civil justice systems in the nation’s largest 75 counties. Among these counties, the number of tort trials decreased 31.8% between 1992 and 2001.
• “Overwhelming Majority” of Federal Judges Don’t See “Frivolous Lawsuits” as Major Problem. According to a survey by the Federal Judicial Center – the research and education agency of the federal court system – the overwhelming majority of Federal judges do not view “frivolous lawsuits” as a problem. Seventy percent of the respondents called groundless litigation either a ‘small problem’ or a ‘very small problem,’ and 15% said it was no problem at all. Only 1% called it a ‘very large problem,’ 2% called it a ‘large problem’ and the rest rated it as a ‘moderate problem’ in their courts. In addition, 91% of the judges surveyed opposed provisions in the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which won House approval in the last Congress.”

Source:  American Association for Justice.  As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. With 52,000 members worldwide, AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.  Visit http://www.justice.org

Bogus National Chamber of Commerce “Study” Is Propaganda Attack Against Civil Justice System, Which Continues the Chamber's Effort to Eliminate Corporate Accountability for Wrongdoing and Negligence

From the American Association for Justice:

A bogus study released today by the national Chamber of Commerce claiming to rank so-called “anti-business” state legal systems is yet another baseless attack on the nation’s civil justice system in its campaign to eliminate corporate accountability for wrongdoing and negligence.

“This latest propaganda is a made-up survey primarily of corporate lawyers earning millions of dollars defending their CEOs from being held accountable,” said Jon Haber, chief executive officer of the American Association for Justice.  “The Chamber will stop at nothing to destroy the civil justice system in America, which protects the rights of consumers, employees, and shareholders against corporate wrongdoing and negligence.”

As the largest lobby in the country and a front group for corporations seeking to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence, the national Chamber of Commerce has led the effort to eliminate access to justice for Americans.

The American Association for Justice today released “The Ten Worst States to Get Sick or Injured In” providing sobering examples of how the national Chamber’s efforts and those of big corporations seeking to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence puts corporate greed over public good.

“The Ten Worst States to Get Sick or Injured In’’ shows what America is in store for if the national Chamber and powerful corporations get their way. “Efforts by front groups like the national Chamber to pass laws that allow corporate CEOs to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence have eliminated many Americans’ access to justice,” Haber said.   

The 10 Worst States To Get Sick Or Injured In:

1.  Don't Get Hurt in Alabama.
It doesn’t matter how seriously an individual is injured, Alabama law limits restitution for every injury or death caused by the government to what’s available under workers comp. If a local governmental entity is held responsible, no matter how great the loss, restitution is limited to $100,000 per person for injury or death, or $300,000 if more than one person is injured or killed in the same incident – no matter how many people were affected. So the more people hurt, the less restitution they receive. Alabama Code §§ 41-9-70, 11-93-2, 11-47-190.

2.  Alaska’s Big Freeze.
In Alaska, restitution for “noneconomic” losses is limited to the greater of $1 million or the injured person’s life expectancy in years multiplied by $25,000. That may not sound bad until one remembers that people can live 50 years or more after they are injured, and these injuries can include something as serious as the permanent loss of urinary and bowel function. Fifty years of tending to the necessary medical needs – let alone the initial treatment – would not come close to being covered by this limited amount. Alaska Statutes § 09.17.010; State v. Johnson, 2 P.3d 56 (Alaska 2000).

3.  Colorado’s Rocky Mountain Low.
Restitution for victims injured by a Colorado state employee is limited to $150,000. If two or more people are injured at one time, restitution is limited to $600,000, no matter how many people must divide the amount. In such cases, regardless of need, no one person can recover more than $150,000. For many victims of serious injury, this would never even cover the basic hospital costs. Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-114.

Colorado's legislators have also imposed arbitrary limits on the amount of restitution that can be awarded to medical patients, injured through no fault of their own. No matter the facts of the case, how badly the patient is injured, or how much the medical care and rehabilitation has cost in the past or will cost in the future, compensation is strictly limited to $1 million. Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-64-302(1)(b).

4.  Florida’s Gator Bite.
Florida has consented to allow its citizens to hold the state and its employees accountable – up to a point. Restitution in such cases is limited to $100,000 for one person and a total of $200,000 per incident, no matter how many people are injured or the severity of the harm. Personal losses exceeding $100,000 "may be reported to the Legislature," which may or may not do anything at all. Injured individuals can always hope the state agency involved bought liability insurance. If not, there is no recourse. Florida Statutes § 768.28(5).

In 1988 state legislators took away judges’ and juries’ right to determine cases of babies with brain injuries injured during birth. If expecting parents want to ensure a potential birthing center can be held responsible for its mistakes, they are forced to search out a “non-participating provider” in Florida’s bureaucratic “FBRNIC” Plan. But more often than not, expecting parents have no idea they could be signing away their child’s future in the often-confusing documents piled upon them during a prenatal visit. Florida Statutes §§ 766.301 - .316

5.  Illinois Hospitals Run on the Cheap.
If you get injured as a result of negligence by a state employee or agent – like a physician working at a state-operated hospital – restitution will be limited to $100,000 no matter how serious the injury or how expensive the recovery. Illinois Statutes Chapter 705 § 505/8(d).

6.  Don’t Get Sick in Indiana.
Legislators imposed an arbitrary limit of $1.25 million for injured patients’ restitution, no matter how bad the injury or how much it will cost to provide future care. Although future care for a badly injured person – like a baby with brain damage – can last for decades and cost millions of dollars, Indiana healthcare providers (in reality, their insurance companies) are liable for only the first $250,000. That’s a sweet deal for the insurance companies, which pass the rest of the bill on to the state taxpayers.  Ind. Code Ann. § 34-18-14-3.

A tragic example of this limit’s impact can be found in the experience of Frank Cornelius, a lobbyist who helped convince Indiana lawmakers to adopt it. After helping pass the limits, Cornelius was the victim of four separate acts of negligence in the course of routine surgery and post-operative care. He wrote a poignant article in 1994 stating that, at age 49, he was confined to a wheelchair, was in constant pain, his marriage ended, and he had amassed medical bills of more than $5 million. Due to the limits, his restitution was limited to $500,000.

7.  Oklahoma’s Not OK for Injured Patients.
Oklahoma legislators have imposed a complicated system on injured patients, which resembles a game of poker more than it does access to justice. For example, a guilty party can make an “offer of judgment” before trial – if they offer to settle the case, forego trial, and, if the injured patient will accept their offer, allow a judgment for that amount to be entered against them. If the patient declines the offer of judgment and proceeds to trial, and does not secure a judgment for at least 1½ times the amount offered before trial, any noneconomic compensation is limited to $300,000. Oklahoma Statutes, Title 23, § 1- 1708.1F-1.

8.  Texas: Dead on Arrival.
Legislators decided to let the families of dead patients fend for themselves. Even if a family has lost its breadwinner, if they sue for restitution, they are limited to an amount of $500,000 (to be adjusted to track the consumer price index). The limit applies to each patient killed, no matter how many medical centers, doctors, or other healthcare personnel were responsible for his/her death. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.303.

9.  Virginia May Be for Lovers, but It's Not for Injured Children.
Virginia has a separate system for cases where babies are brain damaged during birth. Such injuries can result from oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury. Babies who suffer them can be permanently disabled, and may need assistance with daily living activities, up to and including round-the-clock care for life. In some cases they need care long after their parents have died. The bureaucratic “VBRNIC” Program is charged with providing lifetime care for injured babies, related expenses and compensation for a child’s lost earnings. Once a baby is injured, the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission decides whether the baby will be covered, and the claim is never seen by a court unless the Commission’s decision is appealed. Once the Commission decides to cover a baby, the child and his/her family are prevented from ever holding the healthcare provider responsible for the baby’s condition, or for any harm coming to the mother.

Not only does this treatment go against the basic respect for human life, but it also forces an undue burden onto state taxpayers. The program’s expense is borne not by those who caused the injury, or even by their insurance companies. It is borne by every Virginian who purchases any kind of liability insurance – even homeowner and automobile insurance. What’s worse is that the program costs more to operate than the tort system it replaced, juries and all. Virginia Code §§ 38.2-5000 to -5021.

10.  West Virginia, Almost Heaven?
In West Virginia, as long as a healthcare provider has malpractice insurance with at least a $1 million limit, no victim of his/her negligence can recover restitution of more than $500,000 for a "noneconomic" loss. However, "noneconomic" is defined to include a number of conditions that can have major economic consequences. Such losses include permanent, substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, loss of a bodily organ system, or a permanent physical or mental injury that leaves the victim unable to care for himself/herself independently and perform "life sustaining" activities. West Virginia Code § 55-7B-8.

As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. With 52,000 members worldwide, AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.  Visit http://www.justice.org