LCJ’S HISTORY
Lawyers for Civil Justice was formed in 1987 with the goal of promoting “excellence, fairness, and improvements to the judicial system.” LCJ was organized by three national defense bar organizations, with the support of leading U.S. companies. The Defense Research Institute (DRI), the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, and the International Association of Defense Counsel, continue to be founding members.
Leading U.S. companies and law firms were involved in the founding of LCJ and began to directly participate as LCJ members soon after. Our growing membership has enhanced our advocacy by bringing together the front-line experience and deep expertise of corporate counsel and defense bar litigators. Through collaboration we work to develop and advocate for rules solutions to the most challenging civil litigation issues.
LCJ’s original mission, to address “the ever-increasing expansion of liability of defense litigants and soaring costs of litigation” remains critical today. In the nearly four decades since our founding, LCJ has advocated for procedural and evidentiary rule reforms which have had a major impact on the efficiency and fairness of litigation. As civil litigation has evolved over the decades, so has LCJ’s advocacy, and our record of achievement is long and impressive.
LCJ is the leading advocacy organization specializing in procedural and evidentiary rules reform. Every company concerned about the fairness and efficiency of litigation should be a part of our work. We are at the vanguard of improving litigation rules and our effectiveness is unrivaled. Learn more LCJ and our advocacy:
Categories
Regions
Location
FAQ
Change Expert Evidence Admissibility Practices ?
Rule 702 – not Daubert or any other case law – sets the standard for the admissibility of expert evidence, but many courts misunderstand the rule and its requirements. Too often, courts neglect their “gatekeeping” obligations by allowing juries to hear expert testimony without first determining whether it is the product of sufficient data and reliable methods. This practice deviates from Rule 702’s allocation of responsibility between the judge and the jury for deciding preliminary questions under Rules 104(a) (the judge decides whether evidence is admissible) and 104(b) (the jury decides how much weight to give the evidence). Unfortunately, the distinction between these tests is implied rather than stated in the current rule, and often ignored in the caselaw.
Reduce Privilege Log Burdens ?
Time-consuming and expensive “document-by-document” privilege logs have become the de facto standard in most courts, even though Rule 23(b)(5)(A) does not require them. That’s why LCJ asked the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules in 2020 to amend the FRCP to ensure that parties have flexibility to meet their privilege logging responsibilities in more cost-efficient ways.
Establish Rules for MDLs ?
The most important subject for MDL judges to handle at the outset of a new MDL proceeding is the potential for the mass filing of unexamined claims by plaintiffs who never used the product or suffered an injury within the scope of the suit. Proposed Rule 16.1 should help avoid the well-known problems that unexamined claims cause in MDL proceedings by prompting judges to require basic due diligence such as evidence of exposure to the alleged cause and a resulting injury, early in the case.
Improve Public Trust in the Courts ?
Lagging public trust in our judicial system is a problem for our country and a concern of LCJ members. Lawyers and parties who engage regularly in the civil justice system rely on public acceptance of judicial decisions and depend on jurors to respect the judicial process and judges’ instructions. Attacks on the judiciary – both verbal and physical -- threaten the ability of courts, parties, and lawyers to achieve the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of all cases as FRCP Rule 1 aspires. Public disparagement of judges and divisive criticisms of judicial independence contribute to the public’s decreasing regard for courts. The factors impacting public views of the judicial system have been in play for many years and will require a sustained effort in response.
Leave a Reply