Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

Public Justice (formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice) opened its doors 25 years ago to pursue an inspiring vision -- building the trial lawyers' public interest law firm. We have done that and more. Over the past quarter century, no public interest law firm in the country has been involved in a broader range range of high-impact, cutting-edge litigation. So we've become Public Justice to pursue an expanded, inspiring vision -- building America's public interest law firm.

Public Justice fights for justice through precedent-setting and socially significant individual and class action litigation designed to enhance consumer and victims' rights, environmental protection and safety, civil rights and civil liberties, workers' rights, America's civil justice system, and the protection of the poor and powerless. Our Access to Justice Campaign keeps the courthouse doors open to all by battling federal preemption of injury victims' rights, unfair mandatory arbitration, class action bans and abuse, unnecessary secrecy in the courts, attacks on the right to counsel and jury trial, and unconstitutional legislation.

Public Justice is the principal project of the Public Justice Foundation, a non-profit membership organization. We are supported by – and can call on – a nationwide network of over 3,500 attorneys and others, including trial lawyers, appellate lawyers, consumer advocates, constitutional litigators, employment lawyers, environmental attorneys, civil rights lawyers, class action specialists, law professors and law students. Public Justice and the Public Justice Foundation are headquartered in Washington, D.C., and have a West Coast Office in Oakland, California.

If you're not a member, please join us or contribute. If you need our help, please call on us. And please sign up for free Public Justice E-lerts to receive updates on our cutting-edge litigation and activities.

PUBLIC JUSTICE OBJECTS TO UNFAIR "COUPON" SETTLEMENT OVER SHARPER IMAGE AIR PURIFIERS

Public Justice has objected to a settlement involving Sharper Image's Ionic Breeze air purifiers, which emit harmful levels of ozone.

Arguing that a proposed class action settlement involving Sharper Image's "Ionic Breeze" air purifiers "looks more like a marketing tool than a fair deal," Public Justice has filed objections to the settlement and called on the marketing giant for a "more serious" response to studies that show the devices emit harmful levels of ozone.

The proposed settlement of Figueroa v. Sharper Image, which is pending in a Miami federal court, consists of a $19 coupon that can be redeemed off the sale of another Sharper Image branded product. It also gives class members the right to obtain an "OzoneGuard" that may or may not ameliorate some of the adverse health effects associated with use of the Ionic Breeze.

Public Justice's objections, which were filed on behalf of a class member who stopped using the devices after learning of their health risks, argue that the settlement is unfair and should not be approved. Attorneys General in 26 states and the District of Columbia also filed a brief opposing the settlement.

"The fact that the only way in which class members can obtain value from their coupons is by spending more money at Sharper Image raises serious questions about the fairness of this agreement," said lead counsel Amy Radon, Public Justice's Goldberg, Waters & Kraus Fellow. FULL STORY

PUBLIC JUSTICE ANNOUNCES 2007 TRIAL LAWYER OF THE YEAR AWARD FINALISTS

Trial Lawyer of the Year finalists will be honored at the 25th Anniversary Gala July 17 at Chicago's Field Museum.

The Public Justice Foundation has named the attorneys who worked on eight outstanding cases as finalists for its 2007 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award. The nationally-prestigious award is bestowed annually on the trial lawyer or legal team who made the greatest contribution to the public interest by trying or settling a precedent-setting case. The winner will be announced on July 17, 2007, at the Public Justice Foundation's 25th Anniversary Awards Dinner and Gala in Chicago.

"The variety of cases and the scope of settlements and verdicts prove, once again, that trial lawyers are vital to the protection of citizen rights and in securing justice for the poor, the wronged and the powerless," said Public Justice Foundation President Alan Brayton of BraytonvPurcell, LLP, in Novato, Calif.

The finalists -- 37 lawyers among the eight cases -- were nominated for their committed work in cases addressing a broad range of social issues, including workers' rights, environmental protection, juvenile justice reform, and the rights of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita victims.

To see this year’s finalists and synopses of their cases, click here.

UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT TO TOBACCO GIANT: NO FEDERAL REMOVAL

Public Justice amici helped argue for decision that reverses corporate advantage

The Supreme Court unanimously decided corporate defendants cannot remove state court cases to federal court simply because the corporations are regulated by the federal government.

In a case joined by Public Justice as part of its Access to Justice Campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled June 11 that a class action against tobacco giant Phillip Morris cannot be removed to federal court simply because “light” cigarettes are subject to federal regulation and the cigarette maker asserts a federal preemption defense.

The decision overturned an Eighth Circuit ruling that would have allowed corporate defendants to eliminate most state court cases against them by removing them to federal court. In its amici brief, Public Justice maintained that because Phillip Morris is not a federal officer and cannot claim it was engaged in federal law enforcement when it privately made and sold “light” cigarettes, the removal from state court was improper.

"The question before us," Justice Breyer wrote for the Court in Watson v. Philip Morris, "is whether the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail" allows the company to remove cases to federal court under the federal officer removal statute -- which authorizes removal by those "acting under" an "officer" of the United States. "We hold that it does not." FULL STORY