One would think that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s steering of $14 million in taxpayer money to a friend instead of using government attorneys at a fraction of the cost would be a major scandal, but The Sun Herald allows the story to be derailed into a trial-lawyer attack on lawsuit reform— and this is the “one hand/other hand” focus the reporter took:
“Some say the GOP pushes it because trial lawyers are the Democrats’ last major source of campaign funding. Others say Republicans push such changes to protect their major source of funding, big business.”
That reform demonstrated itself to be good public policy (especially in Mississippi, where its legal system was a notorious and shameful “judicial hellhole”) doesn’t seem to enter the equation. (Geoff Pender, “Battle over lawyer fees”, Oct. 25).
9 Comments
I think this is fairly weak evidence of a “liberal media.” The reporter seems to be merely noting that popular opinion says Democrats are in the pocket of trial lawyers and Republicans are in the pocket of big business. Perhaps its not worded very clearly, but if this is praise for Democrats, it’s a bit backhanded.
That tort reform demonstrated itself to be good public policy probably didn’t enter into the equation because, outside of some advocacy groups, that conclusion has not been accepted as verifiably demonstrated.
Seth,
You’re going out on a limb, there.
The way it’s said, the Republicans are the force for “evil” either way.
That is, it could be worded th EXACT opposite (Democrats being against tort reform), but you won’t see it that way.
The default position is that Republicans have no morals, are only in it for th power, etc. I happen to believe that of both parties, but the VASTE majority of the time, the media calls the Reps on it (even when it’s not appropriate) and not the Dems (even when it is).
In the particular example, the thought that Republicans support tort reform out of PRINCIPLE isn’t even given a thought. Show me where that is done to the Dems in the media.
Do you think the article would have had this focus if the AG and his $14m friend were GOP?
Okay, say this phrase were worded,
The first sentence I would not be surprised to see in print. In fact, a quick Westlaw search pulls up several instances in which an author made the claim that Dems oppose tort reform because they are beholden to trial lawyers.
As to the second sentence, I think you’re less likely to see claims that Dems oppose tort reform because they want to defund big business for a few reasons: first, if they’re trying to defund big business with lawsuits, they’re doing a pretty poor job; second, the conventional wisdom perpetuated by the tort reform lobby is that trial lawyers seek to increase their personal wealth, not the power of a specific political party. After all, just as business gives to Dems, trial lawyers also give to the GOP.
The two sentences above do not reflect the view that Republicans support tort reform out of principle. But the exception does not make the rule. I can assure you that the idea that Republicans support tort reform on principle is well represented in the media – as is the assertion that Democrats oppose tort reform out of self-interest.
Personally, I think a lot of “bias” is in the eye of the beholder. We’re more likely, I think, to take offence or suspect a slight when something can be perceived as unfriendly to our preconceived ideas. I also think that the “media bias” circus has probably resulted in more questionable reporting than it has curbed.
Lastly, I share your concern about both political parties being more concerned with wealth and power than principle or public good. As long as we are stuck with two parties that prop each other up, though, I don’t have an easy solution.
Why does this excerpt remind me of a different “Some say” in its approach to diversity of opinions:
Some say the ducks went to Canada. Others say, Toronto.
If the AG has a choice, namely, to hire one of the best trial lawyers he can find, like him or hate him, (there is no link to the article; I assume you are talking about Scruggs) why should he be forced to choose a government lawyer with subpar courtroom skills who will probably get his rear handed to him, (e.g., drowned in paper he doesn’t have the resources to handle) by big-firm defense lawyers. It seems you are suggesting that only big business should be allowed to pay for the best trial lawyers, and Mississippi citizens should be forced to stick with the average $40,000/year government lawyer.
(I don’t mean to insinuate that you can’t be a government lawyer and also be great in the courtroom or otherwise, but, in my experience, government lawyers do not have the civil courtroom savvy as private attorneys)
1) If the problem is that one has to pay $14 million to avoid using $40,000/year government attorneys, then start paying $80,000/year and get better government attorneys, and taxpayers still come out ahead.
2) Even if that wouldn’t be a viable solution, it’s almost certainly possible to hire attorneys for cheaper than $14 million/case by putting out for an open bid rather than handing it over to a crony.
I agree, and increase in salary would be a start, but how many $80,000/year attorneys do you think work at Winston & Strawn or Baker Botts?
Even aside from the pay-to-play issue, if the problem is one of getting Winston-caliber attorneys, it’s quite likely Winston itself (or an equivalent firm if they were conflicted out) would have done the case for less than 14% of recovery. This was a settlement negotiation for pennies on the dollar.