Tort Reform Weak case for barring courthouse door

THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER Editorial, September 18, 2004

Editorial | Tort Reform Weak case for barring courthouse door

With a personal-injury lawyer as Democrat John Kerry's running mate, it figures that Republican congressional leaders would suggest spending some of their precious remaining days this session on lawyer-bashing.

So this week and in coming days, both House and Senate are rehashing tort-reform issues that are neither new, nor wise.

These measures merely share a common virtue in being able to define the two political parties' divergent outlook on citizens' access to the courts.

To which the Kerry camp should say, "Bring it on."

Rein in class-action lawsuits? That discredited proposal could get more air-time.

But the net effect of shifting most class-action lawsuits into already overburdened federal courts would be to delay, or scuttle, legitimate claims. That means many Americans with consumer, civil rights, environmental and public health claims would not get their day in court.

Try to pull off such a legislative caper, and you'd want to label it the "Class Action Fairness Act," right? Yet this proposal is opposed by the very jurists who already have power to intervene and deal with acknowledged problems with class-action suits - such as the need to moderate bloated lawyer settlement fees.

How about another round of debate on the House-approved measures to limit medical malpractice awards? That would be good for getting out the vote.

After all, doctors coast to coast have so hyped their own legitimate concerns about rising medical malpractice premiums that they have millions of Americans confused. These citizens mistakenly are convinced that lawsuits are the driving factor in rising health-care costs - when they're actually one of the smallest.

Already this week, the House approved yet another assault on the plaintiff's bar - the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which would make sanctions against attorneys who file "frivolous" lawsuits mandatory, rather than at a judge's discretion.

Courts could even strike the licenses of repeat offenders. (Too bad there's no similar penalty for repeated, frivolous legislative proposals.)

And then there's that old chestnut of the tort-reform set - "loser pays." It may rear it's ugly head. This insidious notion that, say, victims of a toxic chemical spill might have to pay a polluter's multimillion-dollar legal fees should they lose a case against a major corporation is as repugnant as it is un-American.

Targeting the plaintiff's bar may serve to undercut a significant source of funding for Democratic candidates.

One day, though, it may dawn on tort-reform advocates that more voters are clients of lawyers. When everyday citizens grasp the true effect of these tort-reform proposals - which is to bar the courthouse doors to them - there will be many more votes to lose, than gain.