Interest Group [ATLA]

A.
1. Issues - promoting a fair and effective justice system of attorneys and of clients.
2. ATLA, now called AAJ, doesn't exactly support or opposes any legislation. They simply try to make the best decision under the given circumstances. For instance, AAJ would like for the CPSC to select a new Chair because the current chair, Nancy Nord, was doing a very poorly job at keeping children's toys safe.
3. AAJ doesn't try to influence policy. They are simply trying to make whatever they can possibly manage better for the American people and to keep things fair. Hence the named, American Association for Justice, they want to make sure justice is served in a fair manner. They work with the current policies.
4. AAJ uses the media to record mostly public speaking. One case is "Dangerous and Defective Products Cannot Hide Behind Court Secrecy Agreements". In this case, there were court-secretary agreements that were made and would've hid safety hazards from the public and could possibly injure the general public. There is now a law that allows a judge to decide if the agreement would cause harm and if it did, the agreement was nulled.
Excerpt:

Dangerous and Defective Products Cannot Hide Behind Court Secrecy Agreements

The American Association for Justice today released the following statement by President Kathleen Flynn Peterson concerning the Sunshine in Litigation Act (S. 2449) introduced today:

The Sunshine in Litigation Act introduced today and sponsored by Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) will help strengthen our civil justice system, increase the opportunity for individuals to get justice, and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Too often, court secrecy agreements are used by powerful corporations to hide public safety hazards from the American people and the public safety agencies responsible for protecting them from dangerous and defective products. This legislation will not prohibit all confidential agreements, but instead enable fair and impartial judges to rule that where the public interest outweighs legitimate confidentiality interests, courts should not withhold vital health and safety information from the public.

As attorneys, we are dedicated to making sure that those who are injured by the misconduct and negligence of others may get justice in the courtroom, even when taking on powerful interests. This legislation will help ensure that those powerful interests cannot hide dangerous and defective products behind a cloak of court-approved secrecy agreements.

5. AAJ will target any branch of government and the congressional committees if they have the monetary resources as well as support from the public and all that are affected by the issue at hand.

B.
1. Issues: AAJ is concerned with issues that revolve around the fact of whether of not there is a fair trail or an apparent wrongdoing on an individual or corporations behalf.
Article One - AAJ has demanded the Bush Administration withdraw new regulatory language that may be interpreted to prohibit auto accident victims from pursuing legal action against manufacturers of unsafe tires responsible for their injury or death.
Article Two - AAJ said that the verdict given to an individual about suing for 54 million dollars over a pair of lost pants was fair. They said the courtroom was for people that really needed it.
Article one shows that they are trying to introduce an era where people understand that there is a need for people to understand that products should be held to a standard.
C.
1. Strengths - It follows the general public and their ideology. Weaknesses - Seeing that it follows the general public, there is room to question its beliefs.
2. AAJ doesn't really have an agenda, but if it did, I would say that they would be on the ball of things because they have to check up on everything. From children's toys to poorly made tires.
3. I would say their effectiveness would have to go both ways. In some cases, such as the one involving the public to sue for damages to a company would say that people will k=hear the cry and support their ideas. However, with the case of the lost pair of pants, they simply agreed with the judges ruling. How does that help anyone?