TORT REFORM AND THE 2006 ELECTIONS . . . In an article at Law.com, ATLA CEO Jon Haber commented on the effects of the anti-lawyer rhetoric in last week's elections:
This election destroyed a popular Karl Rove myth. The truth is that trial attorneys are winning, attacks on trial attorneys are backfiring and opponents of the civil justice system are losing.
Is Haber right? Did the anti-lawyer rhetoric backfire on the pro-business interest groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
Here in the area around St. Louis, which includes Madison County, Illinois, voters have been inundated for months with anti-lawyer rhetoric, including the Please Don't Feed the Trial Lawyers ad campaign. Given all the money that was spent, how did the anti-lawyer candidates in Southern Illinois fare last week?
In short, they lost.
This was especially true in the judicial races. Here's how a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch put it, writing about the Illinois judicial races: "As the battle over courts climbs to new political heights, Election Day proved to be a rout for Democrats as GOP judicial candidates were defeated across the board."
One expert attributed the "rout" to the high concentration of Democrats in Southern Illinois. Perhaps, but I'm more of the mind of someone else quoted in the Post-Dispatch article, Bruce Kohen, the President-Elect of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.
""Court reform' is the word that they use," he said, speaking of pro-business interest groups. "(The wide win) is a blow to their attempts to buy the judiciary."
Whether they're trying to buy the judiciary or not, the pro-business, anti-lawyer interest groups lost. For this lawyer, it was a welcome result.
But it's no time to gloat. Wasn't it just two years ago that things seemed so grim? The debate about tort "reform" continues. I'm not sure that one mid-term election means all that much.
Recent Comments