Story on Forbes.com called Courts Gone Wild attacking the legal system. The bad guys in this story are judges (a regular target of tort reformers) and the poor. Of course, as with most tort reformers the author leads off with scary stories, but like most tort reformers, the author only tells a part of the story. The part they like.
The article leads off with the story of the guy who sued a dry cleaner for millions of dollars, because they lost his pants. It was a silly lawsuit. The author fails to say that the system worked, because the case was found to be without merit. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the dry cleaner’s court costs. In addition, the plaintiff, a judge, may lose his job over this. Hardly a case of the system not working.
Next example of the out of control legal system in this country is the “bizarre” story of Mary Meckler, a woman who was attacked by a squirrel in an outdoor mall and sued the mall for the squirrel’s actions. Of course it is an outrageous lawsuit that doesn’t pass the smell test. That is why it was dismissed by the judge. But the article doesn’t mention that fact. The legal system worked, the bogus claim was dismissed.
But those facts aren’t good for a story about an out of control legal system. Citizens use the judicial branch of government to right wrongs. The system is there for everyone. When someone brings an action that is without merit, the system kicks the case out. In the two cases mentioned above the system was not broken, the system worked.
After stirring the readers up with these half told tales, the author of the article turns to his real purpose, an attack on judges and the poor. The article attacks elected judges with the following statement: “To an elected judge, a plaintiff is a constituent. And what better form of constituent service than to take money from an out-of-state corporate defendant and give it to an in-state plaintiff?” This is a ridiculous statement and an insult to the thousands of elected judges in this country who work their tails off every day to hand down thoughtful well reasoned decisions. The judges I know believe it is their duty to be fair and just. No wonder former Justice O’Conner is concerned about the war on the judiciary in this country (see prior post).
The article cites the following factoid: a “study” found that verdicts against out of state defendants in jurisdictions with an elected judiciary are 42% higher than in states which have appointed judges. Then the article makes this statement: “Such awards help judges get re-elected.” Is this because the person who gets this “out of state money” votes for the judge? The article doesn’t have stats on the number of people receiving large verdicts in the cases it refers to, but I would dare say it is a minuscule portion of the electorate and may account for a part of a percent of all voters. A very ineffective way to buy votes and probably not a very realistic political strategy. But good fodder for a tort reform article.
The article next attacks the fact that lawyers give judges campaign contributions. There are many reasons lawyers contribute to judicial campaigns. Lawyers in fact know the judicial candidates better than most others in the community. Lawyers have colleagues and enemies running in any given election and may have worked with a candidate in some way in the past. Lawyers know which candidate is levelheaded and which candidate could not be trusted to thoroughly research an issue. Plus lawyers have to practice in front of these judges.
Yes, lawyers are concerned about electing quality judges. Rather than assigning a nefarious motive to this activity, which also makes for a less titillating story, the tort reformer could have said lawyers want to elect judges who will treat their clients fairly. Oh, the story fails to mention that the lawyers who contribute to judges are both plaintiff lawyers and defense lawyers. Meaning – both sides of the tort reform issue give money to judicial campaigns. (See the Alabama and Texas Supreme Court elections of the last ten years for an example of tort reformers spending millions on judicial elections).
Next the article states we have an out of control legal system because of the poor, the portion of society who has no voice. The article cited a study which put awards in counties with less than 5% poverty at an average of $400,000. Counties with poverty rates greater than 35% had awards that averaged $2.6 million. If I were researching this issue, I would forget about trying to find faults in the legal system and start wondering how we can have areas with 35% poverty rates in this great country.
So judges and the poor are ruining our legal system. Judges are buying our votes by awarding us all big judgments. Lawyers are buying these rulings with campaign contributions (note: the article doesn’t explain why judges need campaign contributions when they are buying votes by handing out huge verdicts). The poor cannot be trusted to serve on juries. Sounds like the answer is to allow the big corporations who funded these studies to police themselves and only pay for the damage they cause when they feel like it.
Judges do not deserve this type of disrespect. They work too hard, often for too little pay. Lawyers do not deserve to be accused of buying justice. Lawyer jokes are ok, but to accuse lawyers in states that elect judges of buying justice is wrong. And the poor, a boogie man people pull out when they want to scare the masses, do not deserve to be made a scapegoat for corporate sponsored tort reform propaganda. The poor deserve respect and deserve to be helped. Period.
August 24, 2007 at 10:06 pm
If a doctor amputated your leg, and then two years later — after you had endured pain and suffering galore and had spent tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills — the doctor reattached it, would you describe that as the medical system ‘working”?
So how about if a judge files a frivolous suit against you, and then two years later — after dealing with discovery, depositions, document production, etc., and after you’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars — the suit is finally dismissed? Would that be the legal system ‘working’? No, the Pearson case is not an example of the system ‘working.’ The Chungs haven’t seen a dime from Pearson, and he’s still harassing them, filing an appeal which will cost them thousands of additional dollars.
Bogus claims being dismissed — eventually — are not an example of the system ‘working,’ any more than you being cured — eventually — from a doctor’s mistake is an example of the medical system ‘working.’ “Working” would be if the mistakes weren’t made, if the bogus claims weren’t filed, or if they were fixed immediately and cheaply.
August 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Thanks for the comments David. “Working would be if mistakes weren’t made, if the bogus claims weren’t filed, or if they were fixed immediately and cheaply”. The first statement is ludricrous, in any field mistakes are made, in fact mistakes are the basis for many of the legal disputes we are talking about. So yes, mistakes are made in the legal field. The only way to make sure no mistakes are made is to deny everyone access to the legal system. I know that is one of the goals of the tort reform movement, so I do know where you are coming from with that statement. Claims with little or no merit are handled efficiently by the legal system, when measured against the large number of claims the system is dealing with.
The majority of claims in the system have merit and those claims deserve to be heard. The few bad apples do not ruin the whole barrel, although you and your ilk would like things to appear that way.
August 25, 2007 at 3:13 am
[...] Jeff at Tort Burger attacks a Forbes story that attacks the legal system. [...]
August 26, 2007 at 9:27 am
[...] Many thanks to Jeff, the PI lawyer who runs Tort Burger – Hold The Reform, for this superb [...]
September 10, 2007 at 7:43 am
Ahhh! You’re one of those rabid lawyers that went off medications, right? And you had a bad childhood? Need a mommy/daddy to take care of you. Get educated … Check out Jail4Judges (http://www.jail4judges.org/)
September 10, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Thanks for the comment Ron. To answer your questions, I’m not a rabid lawyer. I’m a lawyer that cares about consumer rights and helping out the little guy when the big guys do him wrong. I don’t take medications, so I didn’t “go off medications”. Had a great childhood, take care of myself and am already educated. Please visit again.
September 17, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Jeff you need to get a real law degree (this time stay awake in constitutional law) and, at the expense of seeming somewhat flippant, perhaps some new frontal lobes. Your defense of the current civil justice system is heart warming but I suspect comes from a misguided (and frankly perverted) sense of what constitutes fairness (let alone what is reasonable). I will go even further and suggest that you suffer from a rather severe case of legal myopia. The current torts system in this country is socially dangerous. It is not reasonable to have the “freedom” to attack someone falsely (read that as unreasonably) and not be held accountable for the damages done to them. In criminal law the false accuser or imprisoner pays the price. If you really believe the system is so wonderful, why don’t you and your co-conspirators (plaintiff’s lawyers) put together a fund to pay, inter alia, the Chung’s LEGAL costs and while you are at it you should pay reasonable compensation for the “pain and suffering” (damages) they have endured at the hands of your wonderful civil legal system.
I won’t go so far as to cal you a hypocrite but I have a feeling that you might be someone who bears resemblance to a self-serving miscreant.
September 17, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Thanks for the comment, I actually did good in conlaw. The problem is not my understanding of constitutional law, tort law is regulated by the state not the Federal government. The problem is that tort reformers preach personal responsibility, but don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. Tort reformers want corporate welfare, protection from being held accountable for their actions. But the kicker is, while tort reformers want to keep regular lower and middle class citizens out of the courtroom, the corporate citizens tort reformers want to protect routinely use the civil justice tort system themselves. “Socially dangerous” indeed.
Signed, the “Miscreant”
September 18, 2007 at 5:22 am
Well Jeff, thanks for your candor and I note that I am indeed pleased, and actually somewhat impressed at your having done “good” in constitutional law. Thanks also for pointing out the legal structure of our federalist system – I would never have guessed.
The purpose of the present missive is, in essence, to point out that you did not respond to any of the substantive issues raised by me or others in this thread. So here is your chance. Individuals, through the auspices (and with clear sanction) of the civil courts, on a regular basis, in effect, punish others for a claimed tort which prima facie, or even at law, has no substantive basis – in other words when the defendant is NOT ultimately a tortfeasor (in fact or at law). The lofty notion that “the question must be asked” is fine as long as justice comes at a REASONABLE cost (or, better still, at no cost) to the parties. That, of course, is not our system. So once again, I put to you that it is NOT reasonable to have the “freedom” to attack someone falsely (read that as unreasonably) and not be held accountable for the damages done to them (in financial, emotional and character terms). The multi-million dollar pants suit (pun intended) was one desperately in search of a Learned Hand for guidance. Despite the apologists’ raucous claims, this case is only “atypical” by virtue of its exorbitant damages claims. Other than that it was business as usual, the reasonable person was nowhere to be found – including, until belatedly, on the bench. Unfortunately for the apologists, this case is actually the prototypical example of the endemic gross misuse of the civil system, by self-serving reprobates, that was once a safe haven for truly injured individuals but which, in effect, has been differentiated (perverted is closer to fact) into one that, in truth, has questionable legitimacy in a nation that so stridently professes adherence to principles of democracy, fairness and the rule of law. A long-overdue facial change is in the wind. REASONABLE, the word and deed so badly mutilated, judicially and otherwise, in recent times, appears ready for rehabilitation and enforcement.