Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Sen. Edwards’ record (and some kind words)

Bill Dyer (Dec. 30), following up on Stephen Bainbridge (Dec. 28), has some thoughts about “whether Edwards’ career as a lawyer who primarily represented plaintiffs in personal injury cases is, by itself, a factor that ought to cut against his being President.” Along the way, he has some kind things to say about the authors of this site, which are much appreciated.

The question of what sort of pro bono work Sen. Edwards did during his legal career has also been getting attention recently (as in this guest post at Andrew Sullivan’s). For our take on that, see Jul. 27, 2004.

Filed under: , , ,

A thought on “hypocrisy” accusations

As a matter of federal tax policy, I oppose permitting deductions for state taxes. I would rather see lower federal rates across the board, and let the full impact of state taxes rest on the residents of the states that have high taxes, rather than have the entire nation subsidize a quarter or more of the tremendous tax rates paid by New Yorkers and Californians, thus reducing the pain of higher state taxes and allowing local politicians to escape the political consequences of profligate spending (not to mention preventing tax-cutting state politicians from realizing the full benefit of their policy).

But come April, I promise you that on my 1040 Schedule A, I’m going to deduct the thousands of dollars of state income tax I paid and collect the resulting refund. Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course not: it just means that I’m not an idiot.

I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t take deductions that are available to them; I’m arguing that the deduction shouldn’t exist. Self-flagellation on my taxes doesn’t make me any purer or my policy arguments any more correct, it just means that I suffer all the costs of a tax policy I oppose without realizing any of the benefits.

Cyrus Dugger, however, makes precisely this mistake when he criticizes a reformer for being a plaintiff in a lawsuit as a “hypocrite.” (Or, more accurately, thoughtlessly parrots the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association’s accusation of hypocrisy.) That one argues that the law should be changed for the good of society doesn’t at all require that one refuse to take advantage of a bad law. There’s no requirement that reformers who find themselves in the situation of being plaintiffs abstain from receiving legally available non-economic damages. Reformers aren’t arguing that individuals are bad people for seeking non-economic damages, but, rather, the legal system’s award of unlimited non-economic damages is bad public policy. (For that matter, it’s far from clear that Stephen Roberts is even seeking non-economic damages above and beyond the cap he proposes—I have seen no one make that accusation.)

Similarly, Senator Trent Lott, an occasional reform supporter, sued his insurance company over Hurricane Katrina damage, seeking to rewrite the terms of the insurance contract that he agreed to, and using his power as a Senator to threaten the industry as a whole because State Farm refused to give him special treatment. However, the only thing Dugger can think to find wrong with Lott is “hypocrisy.” It strikes me that hypocrisy is the least of Lott’s sins compared to bringing an illegitimate lawsuit and abusing his authority as a Senator to punish the nation’s economy in order to seek personal gain for himself and his trial-attorney brother-in-law.

Filed under: , , ,

Is liability reform a winning political issue?

Stephanie Mencimer says no, but I suspect wishful thinking. The only tv ad I saw in a close Senate race that raised the liability reform issue was Bob Corker’s ad raising Harold Ford’s multiple votes against malpractice reform—and Corker was the only Republican Senate candidate that won a close race.

ATLA sure doesn’t seem to think that liability reform is a good issue for it: none of the television ads it bought mentioned the subject.

Filed under:

Poll: 85% of voters support litigation reform

From the Institute for Legal Reform:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – November 8, 2006

Contact: Larry Akey
202/463-5824 or 202/580-9313

Voters Want Congress to End Lawsuit Abuse, Poll Shows

Chamber: Overwhelming Bipartisan Support Makes Legal Reform a Key Issue

Swing Voters “More Favorable” if Legal Reform is Part of Democrat Agenda

WASHINGTON, DC – As the newly elected Congress looks to set its legislative agenda, one issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support from voters is legal reform, according to a poll released by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR).

“Voters across the political spectrum expect their elected officials to curb frivolous lawsuits and abusive practices like fraudulent medical screenings and excessive discovery,” said ILR President Lisa Rickard. “We will urge the newly elected Congress to respond to their concerns.”

The survey shows that 85 percent of the people who voted in the mid-term election think frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and 86 percent say the next Congress should continue to reform the lawsuit system. Three-quarters of those who say they are strong Democrats regard frivolous lawsuits as a problem.

“In an increasingly polarized electorate, very few issues command this much bipartisan support,” said pollster Bill McInturff, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the firm that conducted the election night survey of 800 people who voted on November 7. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percent.

The voters who most helped shape the newly elected Congress say action on legal reform will affect the way they will vote in the future. Among swing voters – people who call themselves political independents and those who have only a weak affiliation to a political party – 63 percent say they will have a more favorable impression of Democrats in Congress if their agenda includes reforms to end lawsuit abuse.

The survey also shows that 81 percent of all respondents think there are too many lawsuits filed in America, raising the price of everyday goods and services, and 84 percent think the number of lawsuits clogs up the court system, making it harder for truly injured people to get justice.

Filed under:

Election observation

I seldom agree with Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly, but I don’t think he’s entirely off base here about one of the factors behind yesterday’s Republican wipeout:

* Terri Schiavo and Katrina. This is sort of a gut feeling on my part, but I think it was the combination of these two things within a couple of months of each other that really hurt Republicans last year, not either one alone. The contrast was deadly: the Republican Party (and George Bush) showed that they were capable of generating a tremendous amount of action very quickly when the issue was something important to the most extreme elements of the Christian right, but were palpably bored and indifferent when the issue was the destruction of an American city. It’s hard to think of any two successive issues painting a clearer and less flattering picture of just what’s wrong with the Republican Party leadership these days.

Filed under: ,