Who says that ambulance-chasing lawyers don't have a great sense of humor?

In a press release on Thursday, they attacked a study released earlier that same day, because it came from what they called a ''corporate front group.'' The 91-page study had a ''tort liability index'' on how well the various states keep bogus lawsuits under control.

This front group, said the release, is the Pacific Research Institute. PRI is bogus, it said, because the experts consulted in its tort study did not include any ambulance chasers, or (gasp) any groups affiliated or allied with Ralph Nader.

For some odd reason, their press release did not mention that PRI is admired by some respected people. For example: ''PRI is one of the most innovative and effective think tanks in the world,'' said Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.

Anyway, the ambulance chasers said that, as a result of such ''front group'' chicanery, PRI's report on tort reform makes the lawyers in many states look just awful. To the surprise of absolutely no one, Pennsylvania is rated dead last in the nation in one key category and is 47th overall.

That unhappy disclosure comes just two months after another report — on lawyer discipline — said Pennsylvania had initiated enough disciplinary reforms to elevate the state from dead last to fifth place. You may recall that, in March, I praised those technical improvements, although I noted that Pennsylvania has a dismal record on tort reform, which lets many lawyers get rich by filing bogus suits, at the expense of everyone else.

I'll get back to that, but first the punch line from these amusing ambulance chasers:

Their press release, attacking the PRI as a front group (tee-hee), did not identify its source as ambulance-chasing lawyers and their allies in Ralph Nader's special interest groups. It said only that it was from the ''Center for Justice & Democracy.'' What could sound more noble than that?

So what is CJ&D? Why, it's a front group for ambulance-chasing lawyers and demagogues like Nader and Michael Moore. So, on Friday, I called Laurie Beacham, author of the release, to ask why it did not identify CJ&D as a front for ambulance chasers.

''Clearly, we would disagree with that characterization,'' she replied, so I used another term: personal injury lawyers.

''No, we're not a front group for personal injury lawyers. We represent consumers,'' Beacham said.

I said CJ&D's board is dominated by lawyers — and consumers harmed by the tobacco industry did not get a dime from that massive settlement, while lawyers got billions.

She did not respond directly to that, so I asked if she did not think her press release represented a bit of hypocrisy.

''No, I don't,'' Beacham said.

Later, I got a call from Joanne Doroshow, president of CJ&D, who insisted that CJ&D works for consumers who have been harmed and cannot get access to the courts for recompense. I asked if she could give me any examples.

She referred to a case in Texas, where there was a cap on ''noneconomic damages'' — meaning the consumer (and her lawyer) could not rake in millions over and above the actual damages she suffered.

I asked her about my favorite tort reform — a modified ''English rule,'' to make those who file lawsuits pay the other side's expenses if it can be proved the lawsuit was bogus.

''The better solution is to sanction the attorney,'' said Doroshow, who is both a lawyer and a Nader associate.

I said that would be great, but cannot happen in Pennsylvania, where, as the PRI study found, procedural and structural rules and tort reforms are in the toilet. (We rank 50th out of 50 states in that category.)

At that point, Doroshow said she had to catch a plane.

She did not seem amused.