The Lab Whose Junk Science Is Fueling a Frenzy of Litigation
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
(Penn., filed in January of 2015): Arguing that a plaintiff in an asbestos action cannot satisfy the burden of establishing substantial-factor causation by an expert’s ‘cumulative exposure’ theory that the expert concedes is simply an ‘any exposure’ theory by a different name. Also arguing that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ mandatory practice of consolidating unrelated asbestos cases—even where the defendants suffer severe prejudice as a result—is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.
Court ruled against ATRA’s position on November 22, 2016.
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
Law Firms Spent $168M+ on 2.2M Ads in Georgia
ATRA’s Latest Studies Reveal Financial Influence and Lack of Transparency in Pennsylvania’s Campaign Finance Systems
Two New Reports Analyze Legal Services Advertising Trends and Campaign Contributions
Two New Reports Unveil Disturbing Trends in Legal Services Advertising and Plaintiffs’ Firms’ Political Contributions
In-depth analysis unveils trial lawyers’ staggering advertising and political spending, exposing tactics used to shape public opinion and legal outcomes.