Thread: Anybody considered a WRIT OF MANDATE?

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On * Mandamus *
MANDAMUS - The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command.

It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice.

Mandamus is not a writ of right, it is not consequently granted of course, but only at the discretion of the court to whom the application for it is made; and this discretion is not exercised in favor of the applicant, unless some just and useful purpose may be answered by the writ.

This writ was introduced io prevent disorders from a failure of justice; therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. Mandamus will not lie where the law has given another specific remedy.

The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, and, therefore constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but a mandamus directed to a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction, and by the constitution, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court is restricted to certain specified cases, which do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section, authorizing this writ to be issued by the supreme court to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, is, therefore, not warranted by the constitution and void.

The circuit courts of the United States may also issue writs of mandamus, but their power in this particular is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.
--b--

[This article is written from the perspective of a person in India, but most of it is applicable in the U.S..]

Mandamus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means "we command" in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.[1]

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

Mandamus can be supplemented by the statement that it is not only the command to do but also a command not to do a particular thing against the rights of the petitioner. Mandamus is supplemented by legal rights. It must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

The applicant pleading for the writ of mandamus to be enforced should be able to show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities:

1. It must be a duty of public nature
2. The duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary.

Normally, a writ of mandamus does not issue to, or an order in the nature of mandamus is not made against, the private individual. It is not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed be a public official or an official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorizing their undertakings. A mandamus would be equally applicable for a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities. The court to which the application for the issue of mandamus is made will not constitute itself a court of appeal from the decision of the administrative authority and will not examine the correctness or otherwise of a decision on merits. The exercise of administrative discretion is not interfered upon by the court, but it will do so if there has been an illegal exercise of the discretion. There is an illegal exercise of discretion where:

1. The order is made without, or in excess of jurisdiction
2. The order made is mala fide, or
3. The authority is influenced by extraneous consideration.

Contents

* 1 History of Mandamus
* 2 Purpose of Mandamus
* 3 Kinds of Mandamus
* 4 Mandamus in the United States
o 4.1 In general
o 4.2 Federal courts
o 4.3 State courts

History of Mandamus

The writ of mandamus is of a very ancient origin, dating back at the latest to the times of Edward II.[5] It seems originally to have been one of that large classes of writs by which the Sovereign of England directed the performance of any desired act by his subjects, the word "missive" in such writs and letters, having given rise to the present name of the writ. These letters, missives or mandates, to which the generic term mandamus was applied, were in no sense judicial writs but were merely commands issuing directly from the sovereign to the subject without the intervention of the court. The writ in the shape of these commands, however, became obsolete at a very early stage and gradually it came to be confined to the judicial writ issued by the King's Bench which has by steady growth developed into the writ of mandamus, which is, in general, a command issuing in the King's name from the Court of King's bench and directed to any person, corporation or inferior court of jurisdiction within the King's Dominions requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to their office and duty, and which the Court of King's bench has previously determined, or at least supposes to be a consonant to right and justice. It is high prerogative writ of a most extensive remedial nature... And issues in all cases where a party has a right to have anything done, and hath no other specific means of compelling its performance.[6]

Purpose of Mandamus

The purpose of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where there is a specific right but no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right. It also lies in cases where there is an alternative remedy but the mode of redress is less convenient, less beneficial or less effectual. Generally, it is not available in anticipation of any injury except when the petitioner is likely to be affected by an official act in contravention of a statutory duty or where an illegal or unconstitutional order is made. The grant of mandamus is a matter for the discretion of the court, the exercise of which is governed by well-settled principles.[7]

Mandamus, being a discretionary remedy, the application for that must be made in good faith and not for indirect purposes. Acquiescence cannot, however, bar the issue of mandamus. The petitioner must, of course, satisfy the Court that he has the legal right to the performance of the legal duty as distinct from mere discretion of authority.

A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of statute is required to perform a duty and which despite demand in writing has not been performed. In no other case will a writ of mandamus issue unless it be to quash an illegal order.

Kinds of Mandamus

There are essentially three kinds of Mandamus:

1. Alternative Mandamus: A mandamus issued upon the first application for relief, commanding the defendant either to perform the act demanded or to appear before the court at a specified time to show cause for not performing it.
2. Peremptory Mandamus: An absolute and unqualified command to the defendant to do the act in question. It is issued when the defendant defaults on, or fails to show sufficient cause in answer to, an alternative mandamus.[9]
3. Continuing Mandamus: A Mandamus issued to a lower authority in general public interest asking the officer or the authority to perform its tasks expeditiously for an unstipulated period of time for preventing miscarriage of justice.

Mandamus in the United States

In general

In the administrative law context in the United States, the requirement that mandamus can be used only to compel a ministerial act has largely been abandoned. By statute or by judicial expansion of the writ of mandamus in most of the U.S. states, acts of administrative agencies are now subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion. Judicial review of agencies of the United States federal government for abuse of discretion is authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Federal courts

The power of the Supreme Court of the United States to issue a writ of mandamus outside its appellate jurisdiction was the controversy that led the Court to delve into the much more significant issue of judicial review in the famed case of Marbury v. Madison. In modern practice, the Court has effectively abolished the issuance of mandamus and other prerogative writs although it theoretically retains the power to do so.

In the context of mandamus from a United States Court of Appeals to a United States District Court, the Supreme Court has ruled that the appellate courts have discretion to issue mandamus to control an abuse of discretion by the lower court in unusual circumstances, where there is a compelling reason not to wait for an appeal from a final judgment. This discretion is exercised very sparingly.

The authority of the United States district courts to issue mandamus has been expressly abrogated by Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but relief in the nature of mandamus can be had by other remedies provided for in the Rules, where provided by statute, or by use of the District Court's equitable powers.

State courts

In some state-court systems, however, mandamus has evolved into a general procedure for discretionary appeals from nonfinal trial-court decisions.

In some U.S. states, including California, the writ is now called mandate instead of mandamus, and may be issued by any level of the state court system to any lower court or to any government official. It is still common for Californians to bring "taxpayer actions" against public officials for wasting public funds through mismanagement of a government agency, where the relief sought is a writ of mandate compelling the official to stop wasting money and fulfill his duty to protect the public fisc.

Other states, including New York, have replaced mandamus (as well as the other prerogative writs) with statutory procedures. In New York, this is known as an Article 78 review after the civil procedure law provision that created the statutory procedure.

References

1. ^ Bryan A Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, p. 980, 8th Ed., St. Paul, USA, 2004
5. ^ Godiand's case, referred to in Widdrington's case, 1 Lev and R. v. Askew, 4 Burr 2186
6. ^ Blackstone, 3 Com 100: High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, Sec. 1
9. ^ Legal Dictionary

Connecticut Superior Court Civil Procedures

Mandamus
The Superior Court may issue a writ of mandamus only to enforce a clear legal right where the person against whom the writ is directed is under a legal obligation to perform the act. (C.G.S. 52-485 et seq. and P.B. Sec. 23-45 - Sec. 23-49).

Commencement of an Action Seeking Manamus - Documents to be Filed:

1. A writ of summons (P.B. 23-46)
2. A complaint containing a statement in the prayer for relief seeking an order in the nature of a mandamus (P.B. 23-46)

Note: The complaint must allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law.

3. An order to show cause
4. A recognizance of $250, cash or surety bond (P.B. 23-46)
5. A Motion for Temporary Order of Mandamus, if such relief is requested

Note: This motion must be under oath, whether it is attached to the complaint or filed during the pendency of the action. (P.B. 23-48 )

6. A proposed order granting the temporary mandamus
7. A proposed bond with surety
8. A proposed order granting the requested relief
9. Entry fee: The current fee is $225.

Application for Mandamus in Aid of a Pending Action - Documents to be Filed:

1. Application for an Order in the Nature of a Mandamus (P.B. 23-47)
2. An order to show cause

Note: No entry fee is required if the application for mandamus is in aid of a pending action.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, The Gale Group, Inc., 1998

Mandamus

[Latin, We command.] A writ or order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, municipal corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.

A writ or order of mandamus is an extraordinary court order because it is made without the benefit of full judicial process, or before a case has concluded. It may be issued by a court at any time that it is appropriate, but it is usually issued in a case that has already begun.

Generally, the decisions of a lower-court made in the course of a continuing case will not be reviewed by higher courts until there is a final judgment in the case. On the federal level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 provides that appellate review of lower-court decisions should be postponed until after a final judgment has been made in the lower court. A writ of mandamus offers one exception to this rule. If a party to a case is dissatisfied with some decision of the trial court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a petition for a writ of mandamus before the trial proceeds. The order will be issued only in exceptional circumstances.

The writ of mandamus was first used by English courts in the early seventeenth century. It migrated to the courts in the American colonies, and the law on it has remained largely the same ever since. The remedy of mandamus is made available through court opinions, statutes, and court rules on both the federal and state levels. On the federal level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a) provides that courts "may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

The Supreme Court set forth some guidelines on writs of mandamus in Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976). In Kerr, the Court upheld the denial of a writ of mandamus sought by prison officials to prevent the district court from compelling them to turn over personnel and inmate files to seven prisoners who had sued the prison over alleged constitutional violations. The officials argued that turning over the records would compromise prison communications and confidentiality.

The Supreme Court observed in Kerr that the writ of mandamus was traditionally used by federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, or to compel an inferior court to exercise its authority when it had a duty to do so. The Court also noted that mandamus is available only in exceptional cases because it is so disruptive of the judicial process, creating disorder and delay in the trial. The writ would have been appropriate, opined the Court, if the trial court had wrongly decided an issue, if failure to reverse that decision would irreparably injure a party, and if there was no other method for relief. Because the prison officials could claim a privilege to withhold certain documents, and had the right to have the documents reviewed by a judge prior to release to the opposing party, other remedies existed and the writ was inappropriate.

Although traditionally writs of mandamus are rare, they have been issued in a growing number of situations. They have been issued by federal courts when a trial judge refused to dismiss a case even though it lacked jurisdiction; refused to reassign a case despite a conflict of interest; stopped a trial for arbitration or an administrative remedy; denied a party the opportunity to intervene, to file a cross-claim, or to amend a pleading; denied a class action; denied or allowed the consolidation or severance of two trials; refused to permit depositions; or entered an order limiting or denying discovery of evidence.

The writ of mandamus can also be issued in a mandamus proceeding, independent of any judicial proceeding. Generally, such a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a judicial or government officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. For example, in Massachusetts, each year the commonwealth's attorney general and each district attorney must make available to the public a report on wiretaps and other interceptions of oral communications conducted by law enforcement officers. If the report is not made available, any person may compel its production by filing an action for mandamus (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 99 [West 1996]). If successful, a court would issue an order directing the attorney general and district attorneys to produce the information. The attorney general and district attorneys have a chance to defend their actions at a hearing on the action. If the parties fail to comply with a mandamus order, they may be held in contempt of court and fined or jailed.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003.

mandamus (măndÄ

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Writ Of Mandamus

Along with the writs of prohibition and certiorari, the writ of mandamus was a prerogative writ in English common law. A writ of mandamus issued from the court of King's Bench, directed to some officer, corporation, or inferior court and required that a duty prescribed by law, and not subject to discretion, be performed. Because of the extraordinary nature of mandamus, it was awarded only when other remedies had been exhausted.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall held that in authorizing the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus in an original jurisdiction case, Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers. The Constitution made no provision for such a grant of power. However, Marshall indicated that mandamus would be available to support the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which by the Constitution was subject to legislative regulation.

The writ of mandamus is rarely used in current Supreme Court practice. It does not replace appeals as a method of correcting judicial error, nor is it available when judicial discretion is involved. Only ministerial acts on the part of inferior courts, public officers, and corporations are subject to control by the writ of mandamus. Normally, mandamus is available only against federal officials or courts. However, in support of its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may issue a mandamus to the highest court of a state.

— Herbert A. Johnson

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0783.pdf

There are also CLASS ACTION WRITS.

Or how about a class action suit?

Federal class actions
In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Class action lawsuits may be brought in federal court if the claim arises under federal law, or if all named representative members of the potential plaintiff class are from a different state than the defendant. Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. This may be difficult if the civil law in the various states have significant differences. Large class actions brought in federal court frequently are consolidated for pre-trail purposes through the device of multi-district litigation (MDL). It is also possible to bring class action lawsuits under state law, and in some cases the court may extend its jurisdiction to all the members of the class, including out of state (or even internationally) as the key element is the jurisdiction that the court has over the defendant.

Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class action cases are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court. It should be noted, however, that the Class Action Fairness Act contains carve-outs for, inter alia, shareholder class action lawsuits covered by the PSLRA and those concerning internal corporate governance issues (the latter typically being brought as shareholder derivative actions in the state courts of Delaware, the state of incorporation of most large corporations).[2]

The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. Typically these cases result from an action on the part of a business or a particular product defect or policy that applied to all proposed class members in a uniform manner. After the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must file a motion to have the class certified. In some cases class certification may require additional discovery in order to determine if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Upon the motion to certify the class, the defendants may object to whether the issues are appropriately handled as a class action, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The court will also examine the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions.

Due process requires in most cases that notice describing the class action be sent, published, or broadcast to class members. As part of this notice procedure, there may have to be several notices, first a notice giving class members the opportunity to opt out of the class, i.e. if individuals wish to proceed with their own litigation they are entitled to do so, only to the extent that they give timely notice to the class counsel or the court that they are opting out. Second, if there is a settlement proposal, the court will usually direct the class counsel to send a settlement notice to all the members of the certified class, informing them of the details of the proposed settlement.

In federal civil procedure law, which has generally been accepted by most states (through adoption of state civil procedure rules paralleling the federal rules), the class action must have certain definite characteristics: (1) the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical, (2) there must be legal or factual claims in common (3) the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and (4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class. In many cases, the party seeking certification must also show (5) that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and (6) that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand.

State class actions
Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have homegrown civil procedure codes which less closely mirrow the federal rules. As a result, there are entire treatises dedicated to the topic. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions..

Pros and cons of class actions
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Advantages of class actions
Class action lawsuits may offer a number of advantages because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit.

First, aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation.[7] In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating "days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial." Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos).

Second, a class action may overcome "the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). "A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor." Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm -- but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff -- must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thereby deterring future wrongdoing.

Third, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund (i.e., the defendant) of all its assets before other plaintiffs may be compensated. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999). A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow. For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Whether a class action is superior to individual litigation depends on the case, and is determined by the judge's ruling on a motion for class certification. The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 23, for example, states that mass torts are ordinarily "not appropriate" for class treatment. Class treatment may not improve the efficiency of a mass tort because the claims frequently involve individualized issues of law and fact that will have to be re-tried on an individual basis. See Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting nationwide class action against tobacco companies). Mass torts also involve high individual damage awards; thus, the absence of class treatment will not impede the ability of individual claimants to seek justice. See id. Other cases, however, may be more conducive to class treatment.

The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, passed by the United States Congress, found:

Class-action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.

Criticisms of class actions
There are several criticisms of class action lawsuits. The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act stated that some abusive class actions harmed class members with legitimate claims and defendants that have acted responsibly; adversely affected interstate commerce; and undermined public respect for the country's judicial system.

Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions. Examples cited for this include large fees for the attorneys, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value; unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at the expense of other class members; and confusing notices are published that prevent class members from being able to fully understand and effectively exercise their rights.

For example, in the United States, class lawsuits sometimes bind all class members with a low settlement. These "coupon settlements" (which usually allow the plaintiffs to receive minimal benefit such as a small check or a coupon for future services or products with the defendant company) are a way for a defendant to forestall major liability by precluding a large number of people from litigating their claims separately, to recover reasonable compensation for the damages. However, existing law requires judicial approval of all class action settlements, and in most cases class members are given a chance to opt out of class settlement, though class members, despite opt-out notices, may be unaware of their right to opt-out because they did not receive the notice, did not read it, or did not understand it.

Defendant class action
Although normally plaintiffs are the class, defendant class actions are also possible. For example, in 2005, the Archidiocese of Portland was sued as part of the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal. All parishioners of the Archdiocese's churches were cited as a defendant class. This was done to include their assets (local churches) in any settlement.[8] Where both the plaintiffs and the defendants have been organized into court-approved classes, the action is called a bilateral class action.

I have my dummy cloche on this morning--where do I vote? All I see are the results. Thanks.

FOR LEGAL HELP????????

Association of Trial Lawyers of America

The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) is the leading organization for lawyers representing plaintiffs in the United States. As the world's largest trial bar, ATLA's mission is to promote justice and fairness for injured persons, safeguard victims' rights--particularly the right to trial by jury--and strengthen the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. It provides information and professional assistance to its members.

Contents
1 History
2 Student Trial Advocacy Competition
3 Trial Lawyers Care - Pro Bono Efforts
4 Name Change
5 External links

History
In 1946, a group of plaintiffs' attorneys involved in workers' compensation litigation founded the National Association of Claimants' Compensation Attorneys (NACCA). In time, attorneys engaged in almost all facets of trial advocacy became interested in the organization. In 1972, these groups merged as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA). In 1977, ATLA's headquarters moved from Boston to Washington, DC. Today, ATLA is a broad-based, international coalition of attorneys, law professors, paralegals, and law students.

AAJ has more than 56,000 members worldwide, and a network of state and local affiliates involved in all areas of trial advocacy. AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance needed to "serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values inherent in the civil justice system." Like many professional organizations, AAJ also engages in lobbying on matters of concern to its members and their clients: "AAJ supports the civil justice system as a fundamental check on the power of businesses and governments and opposes efforts to limit the legal rights of citizens." It has opposed many changes related to "tort reform," including the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which gives defendant companies the right to remove state court class actions to federal court.

Student Trial Advocacy Competition
The organization hosts the Student Trial Advocacy Competition (AAJ STAC), one of the largest annual mock trial competitions for law students in the United States. Roughly 200 teams compete at 14 regional sites. One team from each region advances to the national championships. The winning team and their coach receive free airfare, hotel accommodations, and registration to the AAJ Annual Convention where they are recognized during the Membership Awards Reception and Law Student Mentor Reception. This is an exceptional opportunity for law students to develop and practice their trial advocacy skills before distinguished members of the bar and bench.

Trial Lawyers Care - Pro Bono Efforts
AAJ has established the largest pro-bono project in American history, Trial Lawyers Care (TLC), after September 11 the attacks on the World Trade Center. TLC is a charitable non-profit AAJ established to help victims of those terrorist attacks. Over 1,100 lawyers provided representation to over 1,700 victim families-over $200 million in legal services provided absolutely free of charge. TLC also established The Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund to collect and distribute aid to relief organizations in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.


Name Change
The association in recent years has come under almost constant attacks from organizations such as the Defense Research Institute and the United States Chamber of Commerce who wish to limit public access to civil courts in regards to lawsuits against corporations. Due to market research conducted in 2006 showing an overwhelmingly negative response to the words, "Trial Lawyer," ATLA's membership voted to change their name to the American Association for Justice. The DRI as well as the US Chamber of Commerce used this opportunity to slam the organization again, but to little effect.

External links
American Association for Justice
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Trial_Lawyers_of_America"
Category: American legal organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associatio ... of_America