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.
Maybe we should just divide the US into two separate countries. Those that want less government, lower taxes, less regulation, and tighter controls on trial lawyers could live in one half and those that prefer the opposite in the other.
Posted by: Jeff | November 16, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Jeff: OK, but you're going to have to agree to live in Iowa.
Posted by: Evan | November 17, 2006 at 07:33 AM
Actually, that's why I left California and moved to Texas.
But if I were starting my career today, I'd be in Asia. For example, Macau has a top ordinary income tax rate <15% and 0% on capital gains. Plus, you'll get the currency benefits as the dollar continues to devalue.
Posted by: Jeff | November 18, 2006 at 05:08 PM
Okay, but I don't want the lower-taxes crowd sucking tax dollars out of the other half of the country. And no whining about how bad your roads are.
Posted by: mythago | November 20, 2006 at 02:11 PM
I wonder if Jeff gets the irony of saying he wants "less government" and "tighter controls on trial lawyers." Somehow I doubt it.
Posted by: Matt | November 22, 2006 at 08:44 AM
With Jeff's Bush opinions he should suit up and go fight the war, forget Iowa Evan, send him to Iraq.
Posted by: freddy | November 23, 2006 at 04:33 PM
Matt-how is it inconsistent? Trial lawyers rely on the power of a government-sanctioned legal system to extract payments. So one can wish for less government and fewer trial lawyers also. In my view, both are confiscatory wealth redistribution techniques. Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers?
Freddy-Bush has been one of the biggest government spenders ever. He is certainly not a libertarian. He is the worst of both parties. He spends like a drunken sailor and advocates a theocracy. If he shares my wish for fewer trial lawyers, well even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Myth-where do you live? As someone who has lived in both low and high tax states, there seems to me to be little correlation between taxes and quantity/quality of services.
Posted by: Jeff | November 24, 2006 at 03:43 PM
"Trial lawyers rely on the power of a government-sanctioned legal system to extract payments. "
What do you mean "government sanctioned"? And actually many, if not the vast majority, of lawyers who try cases rely on private contracts with the client to "extract" payments.
"In my view, both are confiscatory wealth redistribution techniques"
Your view argues for the elimination by government fiat of private contracts between two parties. You're quite the libertarian!
Posted by: Matt | November 26, 2006 at 11:40 AM
On the contrary, I do not believe lawyers or the government need to be involved at all.
Posted by: Jeff | November 26, 2006 at 06:55 PM
Just insurers, eh? They'll make sure harms are compensated fairly. Your naivete is sweet, Jeff.
Posted by: Matt | November 28, 2006 at 06:11 AM
Matt,
You're obviously a very smart guy. Surely, there are steps to be taken that empower consumers and punish wrongdoers without use of the legal system.
Take an example like medicine. How do you chose a doctor? How do you know if they're any good? Why not collect and publish a database of patient outcomes? Also, seek direct feedback from patients, perhaps something as simple as an eBay-like rating system. It seems to me even insurers would want access to a DB like this. Bad doctors would not only get far fewer patients, but would also be charged far more for malpractice insurance.
I'm OOTO the next few weeks, so I'll let you have the last word.
Best,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | November 28, 2006 at 09:30 AM
"Surely, there are steps to be taken that empower consumers and punish wrongdoers without use of the legal system."
So what are they? You don't want government involved and you don't want private actors to use the legal system. Are you all criticisms and no solutions?
Most people choose a doctor by who is in their insurance plans.
Posted by: Matt | November 28, 2006 at 11:31 AM