Pint-Sized Pooch Leads To Big Time Lawsuit
February 27, 2009
New York attorney Paulette Taylor wants $500,000 in damages because the barking of her neighbor’s two Chihuahuas is causing “emotional and physical distress.” The neighbor “may even be guilty of inciting his Chihuahuas to bark.” Both the owners of 382 Central Park West and the building’s managers were also named in the suit.
Imagine the “emotional and physical distress” Ms. Taylor is causing with this half-million dollar frivolous lawsuit. The dogs are probably yapping for a Gordito. It’d be a lot less expensive if she just took her neighbor to Taco Bell.
Missouri Reform Update
February 27, 2009
I’ve been asked to testify before the Missouri Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee, which is holding hearings on March 12 on legislation to make judicial selection more open, more accountable and less influenced by legal special interests.
Better Courts for Missouri has some excellent background on how the state’s so-called “merit” system has become highly politicized and hijacked by legal special interests like the powerful trial bar.
Milberg Update
February 27, 2009
In case you missed it, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial earlier this week on the continued, all-around latest sleaziness at the notorious Milberg firm (formerly Milberg Weiss). You’d think a law firm would go totally straight after paying $75 million to settle federal charges it had engaged in an illegal, 30-year kickback scheme and seeing three leading partners hauled off to jail. But you’d be wrong.
It seems the firm agreed to keep disgraced felon/partner Melvyn Weiss on the payroll while serving his prison sentence and even picked up his legal fees. As a convicted felon, Weiss is no longer a lawyer, and the firm had to get court approval before making any payments – an unusual arrangement that was ultimately sanctioned by New York State Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn. Then just last week, Milberg trumpeted the firm’s latest hiring: Herman Cahn.
You connect the dots.
Breaking Into The Smoke-Filled Rooms In Missouri
February 26, 2009
Missouri was the first state to establish “merit” selection, but many state leaders believe the system is broken and needs significant reform. The “Missouri Plan” was supposed to end politics in judicial selection, but 20 of the last 21 nominees to the state’s Supreme Courts have been Democrats or Democratic supporters and many have been members of the Missouri trial lawyers association.
While limiting eligibility to one political party is one way to end “politics,” it’s hardly democratic.
Last month, legislation was introduced in the Missouri House (by Rep. Stanley Cox) and Senate (by Senators Jim Lembke) and Jane Cunningham) that would make the high court’s nominating commission less secretive, more accountable and less influenced by special interests. These reform efforts promise to:
- End Secret Selection: Under the reform plan, the nominating commission for Missouri’s highest court would be subject to the same “sunshine” laws that apply to every other commission.
- Reduce Influence of Legal Special Interests: The current commission is dominated by the Missouri trial bar. The proposed reforms would remove the Chief Justice from the commission and replace him/her with an additional lay commissioner, resulting in a 4:3 lay majority.
- Allow Governor to Choose From a Wider Field: Instead of presenting three nominees, the judicial nomination commission would send five to the governor, who could also reject the entire slate and request a new panel of nominees.
- Create More Accountability: The reform plan would shorten terms on the bench and re-stagger the appointments so Missouri citizens can better hold the governor accountable for his/her selections.
Better Courts for Missouri has a good rundown on the bills and will track their movement through the state legislature.
Follow The Money
February 25, 2009
We hear a lot about “money in politics,” but it’s worth asking: who’s actually behind all the money in politics?
According to the extremely valuable statistics at OpenSecrets, “Lawyers/Law firms” ranked as the top special interest contributor to 2008 federal campaigns, funneling over $230 million to candidates for Congress and President. More than $176 million, or 76% percent, went to Democrats.
When you look at contributions just to Members of Congress, “Lawyers/Law firms” gave $126,040,278 – five times as much as “TV/Movies/Music” (David Geffen, call your office) and over seven times as much as the much-maligned “Oil & Gas” industry. The next closest special interest group was the “Securities/Investment” industry, which could only manage a comparatively paltry $63 million. Since 1990, lawyers have spent a staggering $1 billion to influence federal elections.
Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama was the top recipient of lawyers’ funds in the last cycle, raking in a whopping $43,106,747. Hillary Clinton came in second with a cool $17,477,579.
I’m the first to defend any American’s right to free speech, including political contributions. But I still have to ask: what do the lawyers think they’re getting for all this money? Take a look at my post earlier in the week for a partial answer.
U.S. Supreme Court Shouldn’t Overreach In Caperton v. Massey
February 23, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Caperton v. Massey next week and editorial writers and columnists have been buzzing with coverage. (See here, here and here, for examples.)
Here are a few thoughts:
- This case is not about the constitutionality of judicial elections, and the Court shouldn’t have to address the issue in whatever decision it reaches. In fact, the Petitioners reinforce this point in their brief: “Judicial elections are a well-established and constitutionally permissible means of selecting state court judges, and it is certainly not the case that due process requires a judge to recuse himself every time a litigant or attorney contributed to or otherwise supported the judge’s election campaign.”
- This case is also not about the constitutionality of “527” organizations or limits on contributions to judicial campaigns.
- What is at issue is simply the standards for judicial recusal and whether these rise to a Constitutionally-protected level of due process in this one instance. Since the facts of this case are so extreme and unusual, this isn’t the case to issue a general ruling even in the narrow area of recusals.
- Constitutionalizing or federalizing the process of judicial recusals would just lead to endless litigation and “judge shopping” – both designed to influence the outcome of a case. As 10 current and former state supreme court justices (including two from Michigan) wrote in their brief, “Only in rare instances has this Court found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment overcomes the strong presumption of judicial integrity.” Even the American Bar Association wrote that this case would already require recusal under its Model Code – meaning no additional standards are necessary.
- Perhaps the best and fairerst solution is offered in an amicus brief from seven states’ attorneys general. They write, “Reasonable minds can and will disagree about whether, on the particular facts presented, recusal would have been the better course. And in a way, that is precisely the point.” The states “are uniquely well-situated to regulate recusal practice in their own courts and (2) have been both vigorous and innovative in doing so.”
The U.S. Supreme Court should leave it up to the states to fashion their own recusal standards, just as they regulate most other aspects of their judicial systems. There’s no need to concoct a completely new, Federalized recusal system because of the unusual facts of an unusual case.
A Stimulus Bill For Trial Lawyers?
February 23, 2009
Travis Akin has a piece in the Madison County (IL) Record on a bill recently introduced in the Illinois Senate that “requires defendants in civil lawsuits to pay prejudgment interest on damage awards, and the clock starts ticking the moment the claim is filed.” Since it can easily take years between the day a lawsuit is filed and when the case actually comes to trial, corporate defendants could face huge new interest payments lumped on to any judgment.
The goal here is to raise the stakes for defendants who refuse to pay off trial lawyers to make them go away. As Akin points out:
“The intention behind the bill is to intimidate and force defendants into an early settlement long before the facts of the case are fully known.”
More settlements mean more easy $$ for Trial Lawyers, Inc. Can anyone think of an industry less deserving of any economic stimulus?
Tracking Trial Lawyer Earmarks
February 20, 2009
Trial lawyers were big bankrollers of the strengthened Democratic majority in Congress and the Obama campaign. What’s the payback? Quin Hillyer of the Washington Examiner, in conjunction with the Institute for Legal Reform, has an article tracking a few trial lawyer earmarks making their way through Congress and into law. Some highlights:
“The economic stimulus package … contained a provision expanding class-action lawsuits on medical records.”
“Another new bill recently introduced in Congress would eliminate arbitration between consumers and creditors and replace it with court suits.”
“ … proposed changes to the federal government’s False Claims Act….[pose] a huge danger to mom-and-pop businesses and to charities as well….The extended limitations for the Fair Claims Act would mean that every charity, university or small business that handles any government money would face an administrative nightmare of record-keeping for years on end, just to guard against any retroactive lawsuit …”
“ … if the EPA rules that car exhaust ‘endangers’ public health, aggressive lawyers might start using that determination to blame automakers and gasoline companies for all sorts of lung or respiratory problems, meaning the spate of lawsuits could make the infamous asbestos-related litigation seem like child’s play.”
The proposed Paycheck Fairness Act “would enable trial lawyers to shake down business for awards many times as expensive as the wages in dispute. Because the bill removes all limits on both compensatory and punitive damage awards, the proposal provides big incentives for more lawsuits.”
Taking A Stand Against Trial Lawyer Greed In Oklahoma
February 19, 2009
The Oklahoma House of Representatives took the first step toward reining in obscene trial lawyer fees by approving legislation to cap the trial bar’s rake at 33.3% on the first $1 million and 20% on the rest, a reduction from the current “limit” of 50%. That means a theoretical plaintiff winning a $5 million judgment or settlement would be awarded at least $3.8 – a wealth shift of about $1.4 million from trial lawyers to plaintiffs. If the bill passes the Senate, it will go to the people of Oklahoma for a vote.
Legal Reform From The Front Lines In South Carolina
February 19, 2009
At the American Justice Partnership’s recent partner conference, many state tort reform leaders spoke about actions their states are taking to the kind of fair, stable legal environment needed to attract business investment and jobs. With legal reform dead at the national level for the foreseeable future, the states represent the front lines in the battle to take back our courts from the trial bar.
Recently, I asked Cam Crawford, Executive Director of the South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition, to do a guest post on developments in South Carolina:
Guest Post by Cam Crawford:
Speaker of the SC House Bobby Harrell and 45 co-sponsors introduced the South Carolina Fairness in Civil Justice Act of 2009 (H. 3489) on February 10, 2009. According to Speaker Harrell:
“This is reform for a reason, and that reason is to make South Carolina a more competitive state and a better place to do business. Our state’s future hinges on the strength of our economy and its ability to grow.”
Even though we enacted significant reform in 2005, South Carolina is still lagging behind neighboring states in legal climate surveys, causing us to lose jobs and investment to North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia. In the midst of continuously escalating unemployment rates and an uncertain economic environment, the competition among these states for jobs is extremely fierce.
Senator Larry Martin (R-Pickens) made this point crystal clear when he introduced the Senate companion tort reform bill (S. 350):
“If South Carolina is going to be competitive with our neighboring states in keeping and attracting jobs and investment, it is important that we take a common sense approach to our civil justice rules. [This bill will] bring about a greater sense of equity to the tort system and to encourage investment in South Carolina.”
Even setting aside the national economic crisis, SC leaders recognize that we must change the way we operate to compete in a global economy. When choosing sites for new plants, businesses look for locations with low costs and positive business climates. Civil justice issues – such as a predictable and stable litigation environment – play a huge role in creating positive business climates. The South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition (SCCJC), the unified voice of the South Carolina business community on legal reform issues, has identified three objectives to improve the business climate of the Palmetto State. Read more