That’s from the American Association for Justice’s home page, advertising to its trial lawyer members a Presidents’ Day discount on informational packages on how to sue productive members of society. Thank goodness that sale is over.

Seems like a good time to post an excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s 1850 “Notes for a Law Lecture“:

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.

Also, from David Freddoso, Washington Examiner:

A detailed Washington Examiner analysis of the top 110 plaintiffs’ firms in America shows that their employees and partners gave about $7.3 million to political campaigns during the last cycle, with almost every penny — 97 percent — going to Democrats. The remaining 3 percent was split almost evenly between independent Senate candidate Charlie Crist of Florida and Republican candidates for federal office.

The political action committee of the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ top trade group, was equally friendly to Democrats, giving the party and its candidates 97 percent of AAJ’s $2.7 million in 2010 contributions.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis testifies Wednesday before the House Education and Workforce Committee, a hearing entitled “Policies and Priorities at the U.S. Department of Labor.”

One useful line of inquiry might pursue the Department of Labor’s deal with the American Bar Association to farm out employee complaints that come to the Department to contingency-fee attorneys. Questions might include:

• President Obama has left in force President Bush’s Executive Order No. 13433, “Protecting American Taxpayers From Payment of Contingency Fees.” That order specified that “no agency shall enter into a contingency fee agreement for legal or expert witness services.” Can you please explain to me why this new arrangement does not violate that executive order. Should the president repeal that executive order?
• Explain, if you would, how exactly the attorneys are selected for this referral service. What percentage fee of the awards will the attorneys be working for?  Please provide me a list of the attorneys who are serving in this capacity. Do you intend for their arrangements with clients to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
• How does it improve the business climate or encourage employers to hire new workers if the Department of Labor refers lawsuits against business to outside, contingency-fee attorneys? Can you understand why employers might be upset that your agency is serving as a referral service for trial lawyers?

We wrote about the White House’s embrace of this trial lawyer referral service last week in two posts, “What about the Executive Order Barring Contingency Fee Lawyers?” and “Department of Labor: Working the Phones for Contingency Lawyers.”

Wall Street Journal editorial, “”Pedal Misapplications’: Ray LaHood recants on Toyota“:

A record $48.8 million in fines, nearly eight million vehicle recalls, hundreds of lawsuits and one humiliating set of Congressional grillings later, we finally learned Tuesday that Toyota cars can’t magically accelerate on their own. So what happened? “Pedal misapplications.”

Now there’s a euphemism for the bureaucratic ages. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood couldn’t bring himself to say “driver error” and he grew testy with a reporter who dared to put it so bluntly. But that’s what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study, conducted over 10 months with the help of NASA engineers, concluded. Or to put it in plain English: Drivers, in moments of panic, sometimes mistake the accelerator for the brake.

That’s an uncomfortable finding for politicians, plaintiffs attorneys and “safety advocates” who have tried for years to squeeze money out of big auto makers, including Audi, Ford, General Motors and others.

The scientific study was only necessary because trial lawyers, politicians, “consumer” groups and media ginned up a public hysteria, the Journal observes, concluding: “Mr. LaHood played to those galleries at the time rather than contributing to public understanding, so we can understand why he prefers euphemisms now.”

We write often about the combine of trial lawyers, politicians, activists and PR flacks, aided by a sympathetic media, campaigning against companies in hopes of a cash payout and the expansion of the regulatory state. The attacks against Toyota provide a good example of this pernicious phenomenon.

Today, the Department of Transportation and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration announced the results of an in-depth scientific study that found no basis for the claims that vehicles’ electronic systems produced unintended acceleration. (Toyota statement.) Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said: “We enlisted the best and brightest engineers to study Toyota’s electronics systems, and the verdict is in. There is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyotas.”

Organizers of the corporate calumny against Toyota should be held accountable. The trial lawyers and their allies damaged the company’s reputation and sales, created unnecessary fears in the American public, and added to the “tort tax” that afflicts the U.S. economy.

Let’s start with the trial lawyers. The American Association for Justice, the main trial lawyer lobby, kept up a steady attack against Toyota, even dedicating the September 2010 cover of its monthly magazine, Trial, to the unfounded charges, “Toyota’s Deadly Secrets.” Just search the AAJ website for the term “Toyota” to see the unceasing promotion of litigation — class action suits, product liability suits, insurance complaints, even RICO claims.

The trial lawyer campaign was amplified last year by then-Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A subcommittee hearing in February 2010, “Response by Toyota and NHTSA to Incidents of Sudden Unintended Acceleration,” painted the company as an offender, failing to meet its corporate responsibilities. Another hearing in May repeated the allegations, complete with the release of subpoenaed documents that served the purposes of anti-Toyota litigation. The House Oversight Committee also promoted the charges, holding a hearing in February, “Toyota Gas Pedals: Is the Public at Risk?” The answer was no. (continue reading…)

Below we post on the fraudulent study that linked childhood vaccines to autism. To be clear, the consequences were not just confusion, fear and the spread of bad science. Children’s health also suffered, and lives have been lost.

From Wall Street Journal, Paul Offit, the chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, an op-ed, “Junk Science Isn’t a Victimless Crime.”

Dr. Wakefield received tens of thousands of pounds from a personal-injury lawyer in the midst of suing pharmaceutical companies over MMR. (After Mr. Deer’s discovery, Dr. Wakefield admitted to receiving the money.) Last year, when the Lancet found out about the money, it retracted his paper. But it was far too late.

Dr. Wakefield’s paper created a firestorm. Thousands of parents in the United Kingdom and Ireland chose not to vaccinate their children. Hundreds of children were hospitalized and four killed by measles. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.

Dr. Wakefield’s claim sparked a general distrust of vaccines. In recent years—as more parents chose not to vaccinate their children—epidemics of measles, mumps, bacterial meningitis and whooping cough swept across the United States. The whooping cough epidemic currently raging in California is larger than any since 1955

Via Overlawyered.com, see also Respectful Insolence, CNN, AP, Jonathan Adler.

Steven Donziger, the U.S. trial lawyer who has directed the infamous $113 billion litigation shakedown against Chevron, is scheduled to appear in court in the Southern District of New York.  Donziger, who could make millions in a successful lawsuit against Chevron, is being held accountable by the U.S. judicial system.

Last week Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Donziger to appear today with all the documents sought by Chevron so the company can defend itself from the accusations that its predecessor company, Texaco, left environmental damage behind after operations in Ecuador. (Updated and revised: The court hearing is at 2 p.m.)

Do we detect a level of judicial frustration in Kaplan’s order? Consider the judge’s hand-written note, which reads:

“ORDERED that this order shall not be construed* to imply that Donziger is not already in violation of a previous order that required the production forthwith of all documents responsive to the subpoena.”

Revelations from outtakes from the documentary-style film about the litigation, “Crude,” have already revealed Donziger and his team of activists to be manipulating the Ecuadorian judicial system, orchestrating bogus expert reports, and mounting a cynical, arrogant and dishonest public relations campaign to bludgeon Chevron into a settlement.

Kaplan has rebuffed Donziger’s claims that the New York trial lawyer’s actions in Ecuador are protected by attorney-client privilege  — he’s really running a political/PR operation   — and so must answer Chevron’s questions and provide documents sought by the company.

Chevron’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to require Donziger to produce documents does an excellent job of summarizing the games the U.S. trial attorney has played to avoid accountability, including appeals to the Second Circuit. After numerous delays, Donziger submitted a “privilege log” more than 2,000 pages long to claim he did not have to produce 8,562 documents.

Everything’s off limits! As Chevron’s attorneys from Gibson Dunn note: “Donziger even claims that communications with rock musician Sting’s wife, Trudie Styler, who appears with Donziger in the movie, Crude, as a celebrity touring the Rainforest, are somehow privileged.” (continue reading…)

At the request of Commissioner Anne Northup, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has postponed today’s vote on the final rule establishing the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database. (CPSC website)

The 2008 law, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, mandated this new reporting device with the idea that members of the public could gain useful information about products they might be concerned about. Unfortunately, the current proposal invites the gaming of the database to the detriment of manufacturers of safe products, even to the point of expanding the definition of “consumer” — those who can register an online complaint — to include activist groups and trial lawyers. (See our earlier post, “CPSIA Update: Why Would You Let Bad Info into Public Database?”)

Commissioners Northup and Nancy Nord submitted an alternative, less disruptive proposal, which you can read here. The additional week does allow time for more public comment, which Commissioner Nord is soliciting at Commissioner_Nord@cpsc.gov.

The Energy and Commerce Committee will have many, many, many assignments it will want to undertake in the 112th Congress. Oversight of the CPSC and the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act should certainly be high on the committee’s list.

See also Rick Woldenberg’s post at AmendtheCpsia.com.

Voters sent a message to policymakers in the mid-term elections that they expect Congress to focus on jobs. One of the first bills that the Senate will be considering since the elections, the Paycheck Fairness Act, does indeed focus on jobs — – but negatively. The legislation will make it more difficult for employers to create and retain jobs. Were the supporters not paying attention on Nov. 2?

The National Association of Manufacturers continues to highlight the flaws of this harmful proposal, sending our “Key Vote” letter to Senate offices this morning. We’re urging all Senators to oppose the legislation because it promotes uncertainty in pay practices and exposes employers to costly litigation, both of which have a chilling effect on job creation.

American workers are already effectively protected from discrimination through remedies available under existing law. The Equal Pay Act protects men and women from pay disparities in jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility and are performed under similar working conditions.

Another major objection is to the legislation’s invitation to more lawsuits against employers. As the NAM letter argued:

By removing all limits to punitive and compensatory damage awards on claims made under the Equal Pay Act, S. 3772 would expose employers to increased threats of litigation – even when unintentional pay disparities may have occurred. Its passage would likely prompt many employers to purchase additional legal liability insurance, increasing their costs and decreasing their ability to raise wages, increase benefits or hire new workers. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the bill would not lead to lower wages and fewer jobs.

Senators should not grant trial lawyers new incentives for filing suits against employers, should not burden employers with new and unnecessary mandates, and they should acknowledge the will of the electorate by voting no on cloture for S. 3772, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The Hudson Institute is sponsoring a forum on Capitol Hill Wednesday, “The Negative Employment Effects of the Paycheck Fairness Act.” If jobs are the priority, then this bill has to fail.

When the Senate reconvenes for its lame-duck session later this month, senators will consider the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would vastly expand the role of government in employers’ compensation decisions. The bill would require the government to collect data from employers on the sex, race, and national origin of employees, significantly adding to red tape, paperwork, and hiring costs, and trapping firms in costly litigation.

At a time when the unemployment rate is above 9 percent and almost 15 million Americans are out of work, the Paycheck Fairness Act would impose substantial new burdens on employers that would encourage hiring overseas and discourage hiring in America. As the Washington Post concluded in a recent editorial, “Discrimination is abhorrent, but the Paycheck Fairness Act is not the right fix.”

Please join Hudson Institute to analyze the costs of the bill and its effects on employment from the economic, legal, and small business perspectives at this Capitol Hill event. Luncheon keynote speaker is the 24th U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao, now a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

The event starts at 9:45 a.m. at the Capitol Visitors Center.

The State Department last week submitted a report to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the first time the United States has provided such a self-accounting under the U.N.’s Universal Periodic Review. The basic message is that the United States is deeply flawed, injustice abounds, but the Obama Administration is bringing us into a new age of enlightenment and justice.

This document gives a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society. In addressing those areas, we use this report to explore opportunities to make further progress and also to share some of our recent progress. For us, the primary value of this report is not as a diagnosis, but rather as a roadmap for our ongoing work within our democratic system to achieve lasting change.

The Administration believes that roadmap directs us to the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation that would further inject the federal government into every hiring and pay decision in the private sector while opening employers to a new wave of pay discrimination lawsuits.

37. As one of President Obama’s first official acts, he signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which helps women who face wage discrimination recover their lost wages. Shortly thereafter, the President created the White House Council on Women and Girls to seek to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly and equally in all matters of public policy. Thus, for instance, the Administration supports the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.

The one thing the bill would help ensure is litigation. It allows unlimited punitive and compensatory damages in cases of suspected discrimination, while changing class-action suits from a system of “opt-in” to “opt-out,” giving trial lawyers additional leverage to pressure companies into huge settlements. (The National Association of Manufacturers has prepared a ManuFACTS sheet that details the legislation’s many anti-employer provisions.)

When each new employee is a potential lawsuit, why would a company hire anyone?

Senate Majority Reid filed cloture on the latest version of the bill, S. 3722, making its consideration possible in next week’s lame-duck session of Congress. The original Senate bill, S. 182, was introduced by Sen. Hillary Clinton in January 2009 before she became Secretary of State, a position from which she now promotes the same bad idea.

If jobs and the economy are truly a priority for the President and his Administration, he will ask Sen. Reid to make certain the Paycheck Fairness Act is removed from the Senate’s schedule and relegated to the vault of bad legislation.

And drop the appeals to the United Nations. Employers in the United States have enough problems without having their own government imply they fall short when it comes to human rights. With this report, Administration sends a message, “We really don’t think very highly of business.”

(Hat tip: Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, writing at National Review Online’s The Corner, a post, “The U.S. as U.N. Punching Bag.“)