The Importance of Getting the Right Judges
June 30, 2010
In a recent address, Patrick Hanlon of the University of California-Berkley School of Law noted that “critical tort reform” has helped reduce frivolous litigation, but – perhaps unintentionally – pointed out the importance of getting the right judges on the bench.
According to Hanlon:
“ … plaintiffs and their lawyers are still able to pick the best forum for favorable judges and juries sympathetic to their cases and more inclined to side with them in their tort actions. ‘Surprisingly, overall, judges seem to have had a much greater impact than the juries have in creating anti-business litigation environments,’ he pointed out.”
Could there possibly be a better argument for why businesses and their advocates should fight schemes like “merit” selection, which typically give legal special interests such as trial lawyers enhanced power to decide who will control our courts?
Litigation Costs Hurting New Jersey Schools
June 29, 2010
Think tort reform is a “business” concern? Read this article which reports on the toll litigation costs take on school district budgets.
“The average New Jersey school district allocates approximately $26,000 each school year for litigation expense. in seven districts, this figure was higher than $500,000 for the 2009-2010 school year.”
In one district - School District of the Chathams - legal expenses are budgeted to be $1.26 million for 2010-2011. This is the kind of money that could be spent on “textbooks and teachers and field trips and fund things for kids,” says the district’s business administrator.
Instead, it will go to lawyers.
Another Powerball Payday for Class Action Lawyers
June 29, 2010
That sound of champagne corks popping that you’re hearing may be coming from the party over at the Pomerantz Haudek law firm. WSJ’s Law Blog reports that the firm has just reeled in a $56 million fee in a securities fraud class action suit.
While trial lawyer fees in the tens of millions are par for the course in our nation’s jackpot justice system, that’s a 25% cut of the $225 million settlement. Fees typically are around 15% in major awards. In signing off on the fee, NY Federal Court Judge Nicolas Garaufis wrote,
“While it may be that a lower percentage would also be sufficient, this court will not pretend that it has the expertise necessary to divine the ideal percentage.”
In other words, “How much? Beats me! Party on, dudes!”
Trial Lawyers Use Front Group to Troll for Clients
June 29, 2010
Good article in Forbes reporting on a front group that a class action firm uses to wine and dine potential big clients - including public pension fund managers. (Hat tip: Walter Olson).
$8.22 coupon for you…$21 million for me
June 25, 2010
Daniel Fisher over at On the Docket reports on yet another Powerball payday for class action trial attorneys. This time, the lawyers make off with $21 million in fees. The plaintiffs? $8.22 coupons.
Sigh.
Keeping the Lawsuit Factory Humming
June 23, 2010
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is threatening to go to court to battle one of the great scourges of our age: Happy Meals. In a letter to McDonald’s, the self-appointed advocacy group claims:
“McDonald’s marketing has the effect of conscripting America’s children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald’s.”
As the father of two “unpaid drones,” I guess I should be happy the Center is looking out for me and the millions of other hapless parents who dutifully march through the golden arches every day to quiet our kids with a few McNuggets and a fifty-cent piece of plastic. And the Center wants to make it clear they are on our side:
“At some point parents get worn down. They don’t always want to be saying no to their children. We feel like an awful lot of parents would be relieved if this one pressure was removed from them.”
But is getting kids to stop nagging their parents really the work of America’s legal system? If so, I’ve got a long list of lawsuits to keep the Center busy.
More Payback for the Trial Bar
June 22, 2010
A Wall Street Journal editorial last week provided the goods on Congressman Barney Frank, who slipped a little trial lawyer payback provision into the financial services reform bill. According to the Journal:
“The Frank provision would allow trial lawyers to launch suits not just against companies that commit securities fraud, but also against other companies that didn’t defraud investors but did business with the alleged fraudsters.”
As readers of American Courthouse know (thanks to opensecrets.org), lawyers funneled an astounding $178 million to House and Senate Democrats in the 2008 election cycle, plus another $43 million to Barack Obama’s campaign. The Frank provision adds to the growing list of what $221 million buys in Washington.
Fingerpointing in Minnesota
June 22, 2010
For yet another year, the push to replace democratic judicial elections in Minnesota with “merit” selection and retention elections has failed. Now comes the fingerpointing and recriminations as proponents look for someone to blame for the doomed effort. Politics in Minnesota has the report.
Perhaps the explanation as to why “merit” selection continues to fail in Minnesota is as simple as what was offered by the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life:
“[The legislation] doesn’t allow grass-roots Minnesotans to be involved in the process, as they are now with direct elections,” he says. “It would place a lot of power in the hands of the few who would advise whether to retain or not retain [a judge]. For those who want to see changes, it’s another obstacle to change.”
My bet is MN state legislators know this, too, and are understandably reluctant to strip voters of their right to participate in choosing who sits on the bench.
Democratic Elections “Under Assault” In PA
June 18, 2010
Nathan Shrader of pa2010.com summarizes Pennsylvania voter attitudes regarding the effort in that state to, in Shrader’s words, “eliminat[e] the ability of Pennsylvania voters to choose their judges.”
Shrader lists the following stats demonstrating overwhelming voter opposition to so-called “merit” selection:
- A poll commissioned by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts found that 75 percent of Pennsylvanians feel that “merit” selection could make the judiciary more political than it is today. Almost 70 percent believe that judicial selection takes power from the public and places it in the hands of “politicians and trial lawyers.”
- A Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy poll in September 2009 found that 72 percent of Pennsylvanians favored continuing to elect their Supreme Court judges while just 21 percent would support a nominating commission.
- An Annenberg Public Policy Center poll conducted nationally in 2006 found that voters across the nation favored election over selection, as “nearly 65 percent of Americans want to elect those who sit on the bench,” according to their results.
Shrader believes “the big wigs and moneyed interests are lining up to rob the people of their voice in determining those who may one day sit in judgment of us, our families, or our rights.” That’s right: When insiders choose, the people lose.
“Merit” Nonsense in Pennsylvania
June 17, 2010
The editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are foaming at the mouth because a bill they support that aims to strip Pennsylvanians of their right to vote for judges – a right enshrined in Pennsylvania’s Constitution – is being held up by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Tom Caltagirone. But the people of Pennsylvania should be thankful that at least one legislator is willing to stand up for their democratic rights.
In its snarky attack on Rep. Caltagirone, the Post-Gazette starkly reveals all the arrogance and condescension of the “merit” selection movement. Powerful elites support it, so who is one little legislator to stand in their way? Democratic judicial elections are just a “lottery” anyway because voters just pick the candidate with a “famous name.” Retention elections are good enough for voters – never mind that fact that judges standing for retention lose about as often as the old Soviet Politburo members.
The Post-Gazette asks “what possible harm could there be in letting lawmakers vote for something that must be endorsed or rejected by the public?” Here’s an answer: In a poll released by “merit” selection’s own supporters, 75% of Pennsylvanians said “merit” selection won’t take politics out of judicial selection and could even make the selection of judges “more political.” (Question 36) And nearly 7 out of 10 say “merit” selection transfers the power to choose judges from voters to “politicians and trial lawyers.” (Question 37)
Pennsylvanians instinctively understand that “merit” selection is really just a rigged game to put control of judicial selection in the hands of special interests. If this proposal makes it to the ballot, these special interests will spend millions upon millions to make sure that the process for choosing judges in Pennsylvania will be “one man, one vote, one time.”