Here’s an arresting statistic: “Of the $695,400 in [individual] donations to the Democratic Party of Illinois this year, all but $6,900 has come from lawyers or law firms.” (Brian Brueggemann, “Law firms give big to Illinois Democrats”, Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat, Jul. 27; Trisha Howard, “Lawyers dominate in donations to Democrats”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jul. 26). Five big plaintiff’s firms contributed $100,000 each, and there is reason to believe that the donations were intended at least in part to assist the campaign for Gordon Maag, the Democratic candidate for Illinois Supreme Court in a district that includes famed litigation hotspot Madison County. (Maag is turning down direct donations of more than $2,000). A report last month for the Illinois Civil Justice League and Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch has details (“Justice for Sale II”, Jul. 26 — PDF). Maag is facing Republican candidate Lloyd Karmeier, who’s being backed by business groups, in what is shaping up as a hard-fought campaign (see Mar. 20).
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Before he reached the Senate, cont’d
FindLaw has a convenient listing of the most prominent cases handled by John Edwards when he was in private practice, along with a selection of links to opinion pieces taking both positive and negative views of the senator. For more on Sen. Edwards, check our politics page. Yet more: Legal Times, Aug. 4.
“Symbolism 1, Substance 0”
I’ve got an op-ed in this morning’s Wall Street Journal (Aug. 23)(reprinted at Manhattan Institute site) examining what I term the “surprisingly conciliatory” line the Kerry/Edwards campaign has taken in recent weeks on litigation reform, and analyzing (insofar as that’s possible, given the thus-far-sketchy details) the five-point plan the two offer for addressing the malpractice-suit crisis. For more, see my Aug. 9 post and links from there. Also check out this site’s omnibus pages on politics, which includes many recent posts on Kerry and Edwards, and on medical liability. (Yet more: Point of Law).
A Lot of Trial Lawyers Supporting Tom Daschle
The recent (Aug. 4) fund-raising visit of Sen. Tom Daschle to Oxford, Mississippi took place “under the political radar … Not even the local daily newspaper in Oxford received advance notice of the event and there was zero news coverage of the event.” Why would the Senate Minority Leader go out of his way to raise money far from South Dakota in one of the nation’s poorest states? Well, Mississippi has some of the nation’s wealthiest trial lawyers, many of whom were in attendance, starting with Oxford’s own Dickie Scruggs, who hosted the event. “The fund-raiser sought checks made payable to ‘A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle’ — Daschle’s campaign committee in Washington. Daschle is in an unexpectedly tight race with Republican challenger John Thune. Thune accused Daschle of ‘ducking a debate’ to attend the Oxford fund-raising event. Trial lawyers represent Daschle’s largest group of individual contributors at $1.5 million and his second largest overall sector of givers at $1.7 million during the current cycle.” (Sid Salter, “Daschle luncheon was quiet gathering”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Aug. 15)(& welcome readers from Jon Lauck’s Daschle v. Thune blog and from Jason Van Beek at South Dakota Politics, who points to a similar under-the-radar Daschle fundraiser in Jacksonville, Fla. in December hosted by attorney Wayne Hogan). More: the Daschle v. Thune blog reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has run an ad in South Dakota assailing the Senator for blocking liability reform, drawing a testy reaction from his camp (Aug. 20, first and second posts). The first of the two posts quotes Crain’s Insider, Apr. 28:
Daschle will accept an award from the NY Trial Lawyers Assn. at a 4/29 dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria. “He is being honored for his work in opposing tort reform. Political strategist James Carville will serve as the keynote speaker”.
Edwards and jury selection
The Washington Times does some reporting on John Edwards’s trial practice in North Carolina. (“Edwards’ malpractice suits leave bitter taste”, Aug. 16). Reporter Charles Hurt talks to local doctors about Edwards’ cerebral palsy cases and also relates the following story about the role of jury selection in one of the future senator’s prominent cases:
“In 1991 [in Wake County], he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. … During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.
“I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible,” Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury.
The article doesn’t say whether Mr. Edwards had to use up his peremptory challenges against the skeptical jurors or was able to get them purged for cause. Either way, it’s a reminder of one way the political process is both more open to diversity and more responsive to public opinion than the trial process: you can’t eject citizens from the voter pool just for holding the wrong sorts of views.
Kerry, malpractice and “going to China”
For at least several weeks Sen. Kerry has been publicly floating the theme that he and running mate John Edwards can achieve medical malpractice reform in the same way that Republican Richard Nixon could achieve rapprochement with China, presumably because their ticket would have the sort of credibility with the litigation lobby that the late GOP president had with dedicated anti-communists. The trope appeared in a Cape Canaveral, Fla. speech in late July (see National Public Radio audio coverage, Jul. 26) and more recently in response to a question in Grand Rapids, Mich. (Unofficial Kerry for President blog, Aug. 2; similarly (and by same writer), Doctors and Nurses for John Kerry site; Robert S. Greenburger, “Doctors Diagnose Kerry as High Risk”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 5 (sub); see also Joel B. Finkelstein, “Edwards’ trial lawyer past raises red flags for doctors”, American Medical News (AMA), Jul. 2).
We reported on the controversy last week (Aug. 5). Martin Grace has several follow-up comments (Aug. 6) on the breeziness of the Kerry proposals toward federalism, as well as on the apparently incurable Democratic tendency to blame the whole problem on insurance providers, even though “the largest med mal providers in a given state tend to be owned by the docs” who have no very obvious incentives to self-gouge (more, more). And George Wallace at Decs & Excs (Aug. 5) has more about Edwards’ enthusiasm for curtailing the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which leaves insurance regulation to the states. (Update: David Giacalone, Martin Grace and Wallace have much more on this, follow the links).
A reader on Capitol Hill writes to say that from the appearance of things, the Kerry proposals appear to differ little if at all from proposals repeatedly put forth by congressional Democrats as alternatives to GOP-sponsored medical malpractice reform. Those proposals (the correspondent adds) have been at best weak as a way of curtailing litigation, and in some instances would actually encourage it. For example, the Democratic alternative Rep. Conyers offered to H.R. 4280 can be examined in the Congressional Record dated May 12, 2004. It includes a (toothless) mandate for nonbinding mediation of state court malpractice cases, and takes care to specify that this mandate will pre-empt and invalidate all otherwise prescribed forms of alternative dispute resolution — including those currently required in some states which do much more to curb litigation — as well as all contractual barriers to suit. Having looked through this Conyers amendment, however, I should probably retract my hasty assumption (voiced last week) that the Democrats on the Hill had been big defenders of federalism on this issue — their bill seems just as willing as the Republicans’ to dictate to state courts, it just wants to dictate different things.
Kerry malpractice plan
According to one of his health care advisers, the Massachusetts Senator actually supports “meaningful but enactable” malpractice reform, according to a new report. (Mark A. Hofmann, “Adviser says Kerry supports malpractice reform”, Business Insurance Daily News, Aug. 4). The Kerry campaign website has more (scroll down). George Wallace at Decs & Exs (Aug. 4) doesn’t think there’s much here that’s new, but we’re not so sure, especially on the punitive damages language and in the failure to raise federalism objections which ordinarily are front and center in Democratic resistance to liability reform at a national level.
Illinois’s next U.S. senator
“Anyone who denies there?s a crisis with medical malpractice insurance is probably a trial lawyer” — Democratic candidate Barack Obama, considered a prohibitive favorite to win the vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois this November, quoted at Chicago Automobile Trade Association site, May 10 (via Ted in the comments section at Legal Underground).
The Men Behind Edwards
Our editor, Walter Olson, has covered this territory before, but it’s worth revisiting as Kerry and Edwards make their way across key states in their bus caravan campaign. The report on the men behind John Edwards at EdwardsWatch makes for interesting reading.:
According to published reports, Edwards received $4.65 million from 3,220 lawyers, 29 paralegals, 17 legal assistants and 555 people with the same address as a personal injury attorney contributor (such as a spouse or close relative). The $4.65 million represents 63% of the total money raised by Edwards. Over one-third of those contributors gave the maximum $2,000..
His biggest contributors include patron, friend, campaign finance director, and asbestos-litigator extraordinaire Fred Baron, Silicon Valley litigator William Lerach (see also this), and the mysterious Stephen Bing.
He also has close ties to the law firms Girardi and Keese and Chitwood and Harley. And that’s just the tip of the special interest iceberg.
Other tidbits from the EdwardsWatch site include the discount air travel Edwards gets from his trial lawyer friends and the money he’s gotten from every state trial lawyers association in the country. Has there ever been a candidate so beholden to one special interest?
More: See also details at Rantburg and Edwards’ PAC donors from OpenSecrets.org.
With a little help from their friends
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America has decided to cultivate friends on both sides of the aisle. Long viewed as a friend of Democrats, the organization is beginning to see the wisdom of courting Republicans, too:
ATLA stepped up its courting of Republicans — particularly in the Senate — about three years ago. David Casey Jr., a Democrat who at the time was ATLA’s vice president, invited Mr. Parkinson, the Republican lawyer, to his San Diego law office….Mr. Parkinson went to see Sen. Hatch, who, he says, told him, “Not all Republican senators and House members favor the wholesale dismantling of the civil-justice system, but the view is that you’re completely Democratic.” If ATLA “would just try to be fair to both sides, they’re going to find the reception” among Republicans more welcoming, Sen. Hatch says in an interview.
How “fair” do they have to be to get a warm welcome? Let’s look at the numbers for the politicians mentioned in the article: Orrin G. Hatch, Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, and John T. Doolittle. Evidently, their work is paying off:
The trial bar’s Republican push again showed results last month, when Sen. Kyl tried once more to pass his attorney-fee cap for tobacco cases. This time, 15 Republicans opposed it, two more than last time.
Money talks. And trial lawyers have no shortage of money.