California Trial Lawyers Association changes its name to Consumer Attorneys of California

Business Wire, March 1, 1995

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 1, 1995--The California Trial Lawyers Association is changing its name as it launches a major public information campaign to turn the spotlight on the anti-consumer goals of the tort movement.

The campaign will show that the sole purpose of the tort reformers is to allow big business and the insurance industry to avoid responsibility for their acts of corporate crime against individual consumers.

"Since the members of association represent individual consumers in civil cases, we have changed our name to Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) to more accurately define who we are and what we do, and most importantly, that we represent the consumer," said Wayne McClean, president of the Association.

The Association found, in a recently conducted survey by JMM Research of Sacramento, that the public overwhelmingly views a "trial lawyer" as a criminal defense lawyer, such as Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran or even Perry Mason. (Results in a separate release.)

Consumer attorneys stand up for consumers by fighting corporations and insurance companies and holding them accountable for acts of bad faith and corporate crime against consumers.

"Our public information campaign will show that `tort reform' is nothing more than a code word for protecting corporate criminals and that its financial supporters are the nation's largest insurance companies, product manufacturers, and drug makers," said McClean.

According to McClean, the goal of the anti-consumer movement is to force consumer attorneys out of the system by imposing wage and price controls. Their strategy is to gain an unfair advantage in the legal system by stripping away the average person's ability to sue big business even when they engage in fraud, cover-up, disregard for safety and acts of bad faith.

Consumer attorneys hold corporations accountable for actions such as:

o Defending and covering up a design defect in infant car seats

that, instead of protecting infants, allows them to be ejected

in case of an accident (Stermer vs. Kolcraft).

o Packaging and marketing a common bathroom cleaning product

without labels that, when used with household bleach, turns into

deadly chlorine gas-- so deadly it was outlawed in World War I

(Billy Joe Deal vs. Lime Away).

McClean adds that so-called "tort" reformers are working to make it financially impossible for a consumer lawyer representing an insurance policy holder to make large insurance companies take responsibility for such unfair and unlawful treatment as:

o Denying a life-saving bone marrow transplant to an ordinary policy

holder and approving the very same procedure for a family

member of one of the company's top executives (Nellie Fox vs.

HealthNet).

o Establishing a company policy of denying claims for injuries

suffered by any minority person represented by a Jewish lawyer

(Whitmore vs. 20th Century Insurance Company).

In all of these examples and countless others that occur on a daily basis, it took a consumer lawyer to force the manufacturers and insurance companies to take responsibility for their unlawful conduct.

CONTACT: Christopher Perez, 909/272-1888

or

Kathleen Flynn, 818/351-4646