I 
110TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 7080 
To eliminate certain provisions of law providing benefits to trial lawyers, 
and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 
Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced 
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to 
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consider-
ation of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
concerned 
A BILL 
To eliminate certain provisions of law providing benefits to 
trial lawyers, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Trial Lawyer 
Pork Act’’. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
TITLE I—ELIMINATION OF 
BENEFITS FOR TRIAL LAWYERS 
SEC. 101. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) In the spring of 2008, former powerhouse 
trial lawyer William Lerach was sentenced to a two- 
year term in Federal prison for his role in a $250 
million criminal scheme of illegal kickbacks to plain-
tiffs. Shortly before his sentencing, Mr. Lerach told 
the Wall Street Journal that illegal kickbacks to 
people recruited to file class action lawsuits is an 
‘‘industry practice’’ in the American trial lawyer 
business. Mr. Lerach and fellow powerhouse trial 
lawyer Melvin Weiss, who collaborated on the 
scheme together as members of the law firm for-
merly known as Milberg Weiss, are now both serving 
time in Federal prison for their roles in this criminal 
scheme. 
(2) In an unrelated but equally troubling in-
stance of corruption in the trial lawyer industry, one 
of the wealthiest trial lawyers in America, Richard 
‘‘Dickie’’ Scruggs of Mississippi, pled guilty in 
March 2008 to bribing a State judge in order to ob-
tain higher legal fees. Mr. Scruggs is now serving 
time in Federal prison. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
(3) In May 2008, in response to these troubling 
developments, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner of 
Ohio, and the ranking minority member of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas, 
asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Mr. Conyers of Michigan, and the Speaker of the 
House, Ms. Pelosi of California, to schedule a bipar-
tisan investigatory hearing to examine Mr. Lerach’s 
assertion that illegal activity is an ‘‘industry prac-
tice’’ in the trial lawyer industry. In making the re-
quest, the minority leader and the ranking member 
cited growing evidence that illegitimate and preda-
tory lawsuits are destroying jobs, harming the na-
tion’s economy, and endangering the prosperity of 
American families. 
(4) The Washington Post has called for ‘‘a 
sober discussion about how best to achieve a fairer, 
more balanced legal system through comprehensive 
tort reform’’. 
(5) As of September 2008, the minority’s re-
quest for a bipartisan congressional response to re-
ports of trial lawyer corruption has been ignored, 
and no hearings have been conducted on the Milberg 
Weiss scandal or the broader issues raised by the re-
cent trial lawyer scandals. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
02:59 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
(6) Instead of investigating the trial lawyer in-
dustry and examining the potential threat to Amer-
ican jobs posed by the illegal activity Mr. Lerach 
calls an ‘‘industry practice’’, the majority has pro-
vided a steady flow of special legislative favors to the 
trial lawyer industry since the start of the 110th 
Congress. Numerous provisions have been inserted 
into bills on behalf of the trial lawyer industry by 
the majority, often with little scrutiny or debate. 
One of the most egregious instances of this trial law-
yer pork is the new tax benefit contained in H.R. 
6049, which passed the House on March 21, 2008. 
It is estimated this provision will hand lawyers, and 
only lawyers, a $1.6 billion windfall over the next 10 
years at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and Amer-
ican jobs. 
(7) According to the Center for Responsive Pol-
itics, lawyers and law firms gave $85 million to 
Democratic candidates during the 2006 election 
cycle. And in return for the stream of special legisla-
tive favors it has received from the majority, the 
trial lawyer industry has further increased its polit-
ical support for the majority during the current Con-
gress. According to National Journal: ‘‘In the first 
quarter of 2008, the AAJ [American Association for 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial 
Lawyers of America] spent $1.1 million on lobbying 
in Washington, according to disclosure reports it 
filed with Congress. Lawyers and law firms are also 
playing in the political arena—they are the No. 1 
sector among donors to Federal candidates in this 
election cycle, with $83 million in contributions, ac-
cording the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that 
amount, the American Association for Justice polit-
ical action committee has contributed $1.9 million to 
candidates, 95 percent to Democrats’’ (Swindell, 
Bill; ‘‘Trial Lawyers Mount a Comeback’’, National 
Journal, July 12, 2008). 
(8) Instead of providing special favors to ben-
efit the scandal-plagued American trial lawyer indus-
try, the 110th Congress should be investigating the 
industry. The trial lawyer pork inserted into legisla-
tion by the majority during the 110th Congress 
should be shut down, and bipartisan investigatory 
hearings should be scheduled immediately to deter-
mine the extent to which the illegal activity William 
Lerach describes as an ‘‘industry practice’’ in the 
trial lawyer business is destroying American jobs 
and harming the prosperity of working families. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
02:59 Sep 30, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
SEC. 102. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW 
BENEFITTING TRIAL LAWYERS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Provisions of law that benefit trial 
lawyers to the detriment of consumers in any of the fol-
lowing categories shall have no force or effect, whether en-
acted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act: 
(1) Anti-protective orders, such as the Sunshine 
in Litigation Act of 2008 (H.R. 5884). 
(2) Broadening maritime lawsuits such as the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008 (section 405 
of H.R. 2830). 
(3) Prohibition of uniform Federal law and ex-
pansion of medical liability lawsuits such as the 
FDA preemption legislation in the Medical Device 
Safety Act of 2008 (H.R. 6381). 
(4) Expansion of environmental lawsuits such 
as the Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 
(section 212(f) of H.R. 2635). 
(5) Ending arbitration agreements such as the 
Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 (H.R. 3010), the 
Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2008 
(H.R. 6126), and the Automobile Arbitration Fair-
ness Act of 2008 (H.R. 5312). 
(6) Expansion of asbestos lawsuits such as the 
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 (H.R. 3285) 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
and the Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent 
Mesothelioma Act of 2007 (H.R. 3339). 
(7) Expansion of products liability lawsuits 
such as the Protecting Americans from Unsafe For-
eign Products Act (H.R. 5913). 
(8) Providing tax breaks for lawsuits such as 
the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 
2008 (section 311 of H.R. 6049). 
(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—A provision of an Act 
of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of 
this Act that would not have effect by reason of subsection 
(a) may nonetheless take effect if the Act enacting that 
provision— 
(1) by specific reference cites a report of the 
General Accountability Office that concludes that— 
(A) such provision would not benefit trial 
lawyers to the detriment of consumers; and 
(B) in the absence of such provision, there 
are no other means of remedy or enforcement 
including State and Federal oversight and State 
or Federal civil or criminal actions; and 
(2) has been determined by the Congressional 
Budget Office not to have a negative fiscal impact. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
TITLE II—CLARITY AND TRANS-
PARENCY IN THE CREATION 
OF PRIVATE RIGHTS OF AC-
TION UNDER FEDERAL LAW 
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Clarity and Trans-
parency in Lawsuits Act’’ or ‘‘CATLA’’. 
SEC. 202. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) Private rights of action shift enforcement 
and public policy decisions from regulatory agencies 
to private lawyers representing individual plaintiffs. 
(2) Courts are routinely asked to recognize im-
plied rights of action under Federal law. Such im-
plied rights of action add unpredictability to the civil 
justice system and may have unforeseen adverse con-
sequences. 
(3) The merits of creating a private right of ac-
tion should be subject to open debate and close con-
sideration in Congress. Such determinations should 
not be left to guesswork by courts seeking to un-
cover legislative intent. 
(4) This legislation will fulfill the strong sug-
gestion of the Supreme Court of the United States 
that ‘‘[w]hen Congress intends private litigants to 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
have a cause of action to support their statutory 
rights, the far better course is for it to specify as 
much when it creates those rights.’’ Cannon v. Uni-
versity of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 717 (1979). 
(5) On numerous occasions, Congress has en-
acted statutes that explicitly provide a private right 
of action. 
(6) Expressly stating any private right of action 
will eliminate uncertainty for both potential plain-
tiffs and defendants, will reduce unnecessary, pro-
tracted and costly litigation, and will avoid the con-
fusion of inconsistent or conflicting court decisions. 
SEC. 203. CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN PRIVATE 
RIGHTS OF ACTION. 
Any Federal law creating a private right of action 
shall include express language providing for such a right. 
No Federal or State court shall construe any Federal law 
to imply a private right of action in absence of such an 
express provision. 
SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE. 
This Act shall take effect on the date of the enact-
ment of this Act and shall apply prospectively and to those 
previously enacted laws that have not already been inter-
preted by the Supreme Court to create a private right of 
action. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
TITLE 
III—PROSECUTING 
OR 
COUNSELING CLAIMS OR DE-
FENSES 
THAT 
ARE 
FALSE, 
FRIVOLOUS, OR WHOLLY IN-
SUBSTANTIAL 
SEC. 301. PROSECUTING OR COUNSELING CLAIMS OR DE-
FENSES THAT ARE FALSE, FRIVOLOUS, OR 
WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—No attorney at law shall in any 
litigation, in or affecting commerce among the States or 
with foreign nations, prosecute or counsel any action, or 
assert any claim or defense, which is false, frivolous, or 
wholly insubstantial. 
(b) SANCTION.—The sanction for a violation of this 
section shall consist of an order to pay to the party or 
parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred as 
a direct result of the violation, including reasonable attor-
neys’ fees and costs. The court may also impose additional 
appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings, dis-
missing the suit, or other directives of a nonmonetary na-
ture, or, if warranted for effective deterrence, an order di-
recting payment of a penalty into the court. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
TITLE IV—LAWSUIT ABUSE 
REDUCTION 
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE. 
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduc-
tion Act’’. 
SEC. 402. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY. 
(a) SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11.—Rule 11(c) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘may’’ and in-
serting ‘‘shall’’; 
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Rule 5’’ and 
all that follows through ‘‘motion.’’ and inserting 
‘‘Rule 5.’’; and 
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘situated’’ 
and all that follows through the end of the para-
graph and inserting ‘‘situated, and to compensate 
the parties that were injured by such conduct. Sub-
ject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the sanction 
shall consist of an order to pay to the party or par-
ties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred 
as a direct result of the violation, including reason-
able attorneys’ fees and costs. The court may also 
impose additional appropriate sanctions, such as 
striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other 
directives of a nonmonetary nature, or, if warranted 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
for effective deterrence, an order directing payment 
of a penalty into the court’’ ; and 
(4) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(7) APPEAL.—An attorney has the right to ap-
peal a sanction under this subdivision. While such 
an appeal is pending, the sanction shall be stayed.’’. 
(b) RULE
OF CONSTRUCTION
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 
CLAIMS.—Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 
CLAIMS.—Nothing in subdivisions (a) through (c) of this 
rule shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or 
development of new claims or remedies under Federal, 
State, or local civil rights law.’’. 
SEC. 403. PREVENTION OF INTERSTATE FORUM-SHOPPING. 
(a) GENERALLY.—A person may not bring a personal 
injury claim in the court of a State if the person is not 
a resident of that State unless all or a substantial part 
of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim asserted 
occurred in that State. 
(b) ALTERNATE
VENUE.—Notwithstanding sub-
section (a) and subject to subsection (g), if a person can-
not obtain jurisdiction in either Federal or State court 
against the defendant in the State where all or a substan-
tial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
asserted occurred, then the claim may be filed in a court 
of another State, unless barred by the statute of limita-
tions or otherwise time barred in the State where the ac-
tion arose, if— 
(1) the defendant’s principal place of business 
is located in that State, if the defendant is a cor-
poration, or 
(2) the defendant resides in that State, if the 
defendant is an individual. 
A person bringing such an action shall be required to es-
tablish, by filing an affidavit with the complaint for con-
sideration by the court, that such action cannot be main-
tained in the State where the action arose due to lack of 
any legal basis to obtain personal jurisdiction over the de-
fendant. 
(c) JOINDER AND INTERVENTION.—In a civil action 
where more than one plaintiff is joined, each plaintiff must 
independently satisfy the requirements of this section. A 
person may not intervene or join in a pending civil action 
as a plaintiff unless the person independently satisfies the 
requirements of this section. If the requirements of this 
section are not satisfied by any such nonresident plaintiff, 
the court shall dismiss the claims of the plaintiff without 
prejudice to refiling in a court in any other State or juris-
diction. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
(d) MOST APPROPRIATE FORUM.—If a person alleges 
that a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise 
to the personal injury claim occurred in more than State, 
the trial court shall determine which State is the most ap-
propriate forum for the claim based on whether the private 
interests of the litigants and the public interest weigh in 
favor of the alternate forum. 
(1) Factors to be weighed in considering the 
private interests include: 
(A) the relative ease of access to sources of 
proof; 
(B) the availability of compulsory process 
for attendance of unwilling and the cost of ob-
taining attendance of willing witnesses; 
(C) the distance from the site of the acci-
dent or incident which gave rise to the litiga-
tion, including the possibility of viewing of the 
premises, if appropriate; 
(D) the possibility of harassment of either 
party in litigating in an inconvenient forum; 
(E) the enforceability of any judgment ob-
tained; and 
(F) any other practical problems which 
contribute to the ease, expense, and expedition 
of the trial. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:43 Sep 29, 2008
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H7080.IH
H7080
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS