As pols raise taxes, trial lawyers continue to push their costly agenda

Water bottle taxes. Transportation "doomsday." Gross receipts. Family secrets.

A relatively small number of "sexy" issues in Cook County and Springfield has largely dominated the headlines during the past year. And while each of these issues is worthy of attention, it is worth noting that one clout-heavy special interest group is breathing easy, enjoying their year-long hiatus from the public spotlight.

I am writing, of course, about the personal injury trial lawyers.

Possibly the most politically influential group in Illinois (and nationally), the trial lawyers were able to fly under the radar this year.

But that doesn't mean they weren't as active as ever.

While the governor, speaker of the house, and Cook County board president have been grabbing headlines - and distracting the larger business community - the trial lawyers have done their best to wreak havoc in Springfield.

In fact, the trial lawyer agenda in Springfield this year has been the most aggressive in years.

Among the bills they introduced was House Bill 1798, sponsored by Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), which would allow compensation to be paid to beneficiaries of decedents in wrongful death cases for "grief and sorrow." Not just for actual loss, which can be calculated, but for grief and sorrow, which cannot be calculated. Of course, regardless of whether it can be calculated or not, the personal injury trial lawyers will get their cut of the grief and sorrow.

Realizing this misguided legislation would be a dagger through the heart of popular medical liability reform legislation passed two years ago, the Illinois State Medical Society noted that this bill would "expand the damages allowed in wrongful death lawsuits and medical liability litigation."

Successfully passed and signed into law by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, this bill has created a new source of profits for the Illinois trial lawyer industry, now allowing these lawyers to cash in on grief and sorrow.

Can you feel their grief and sorrow?

Another disastrous bill pushed by the trial bar, Senate Bill 1296, would make any Illinois employer -or any Illinois institution, city, county, hospital with deep pockets the prime targets of Illinois trial lawyers. This bill would change the way compensation is determined in damage suits. It changes the rules of fairness in the Illinois tort system.

SB 1296 would establish that if multiple parties are responsible for causing an injury or loss, it makes no difference which of the multiple parties is most responsible. The plaintiff's attorneys, i.e. the trial lawyers, would be able to manipulate which defendant would be left at trial to pick up the tab. It would be the party with the deepest pockets or most money who pays. It wouldn't matter who was mostly at fault, it matters who has the most money.

Fortunately, a broadly-based collection of interests and organizations - including the Illinois Civil Justice League, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, City of Chicago and Illinois Municipal League, among others - was able to stall this bill from passage. It seems certain the trial lawyers will attempt to resurrect it in some form during the next legislative session.

Perhaps the lawsuit lobbyists have kicked it up a notch because they are losing their foothold at the local level. In 2004, they suffered a major blow when Justice Lloyd Karmeier defied millions in trial lawyer campaign cash to win election to the state Supreme Court.

Recent headlines have hailed the unprecedented reforms initiated by Chief Judge Ann Callis in Madison County - long known as the nation's capital of lawsuit abuse. Now even local government organizations, such as the Peoria City Council, have joined the fight, passing pro-lawsuit reform resolutions. Although non-binding, these resolutions do reflect grassroots pressure and voter sentiment that have made it more difficult for the trial lawyers to operate as freely as they once did.

Despite these positive steps forward, Illinois' lawsuit crisis remains. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce annually ranks Illinois among the worst in the country for lawsuit abuse. The American Tort Reform Association continues to label several Illinois counties as "judicial hellholes."

Employers and investors from around the country still look upon the Prairie State with disdain, due in large part to our lawsuit lottery. Doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals continue to suffer under the uncertainty surrounding the trial lawyer's court challenge of the 2004 medical liability reforms.

As the trial lawyers get stymied at the local level, they circle the wagons and retreat to their safe refuge, Springfield, where clout and campaign cash speak louder than public opinion.

In sunlight or the dark of night, in the headlines or on the back page, the issue of lawsuit abuse will continue to be front and center for employers, nonprofit organizations, health care workers, local governments and hospitals. And as trial lawyer cash continues to flow to judicial and legislative candidates alike, the personal injury trial lawyers will descend upon Springfield in the spring to block any meaningful lawsuit reform legislation and to push a dangerous agenda of their own.

The problems that plague our state's sputtering economic engine are vast, but reforming our broken legal system should be at the top of our elected officials' priority list. For the good of the Illinois economy and our employers, consumers and working families, our state legislators should resist the selfish urging of the clout-heavy trial bar.

The only ones who benefit from lawsuit abuse are the trial lawyers. And when they win, the rest of us lose.

Read more...

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. But What If It Is Broke?

Failure of Illinois government in 2007 could pave way for Con-Con OKin 2008; Wouldn't that teach them!

There is no way of telling how many citizens - and voters - of Illinois are paying any attention to what is happening in our state government in Springfield this July.

We're approaching the mid-point of summer, vacations are getting underway, temperatures are climbing and the guess here is that very few Illinoisans are paying attention to the complete breakdown of government leadership we are experiencing in Illinois in 2007.

Headlines on two separate stories included in our Springfield Watch section below include the words "constitutional crisis" and "constitutional controversy."

Illinois Government is not working - at least that part of the government that is under the control of the state's top elected leaders.

We're not alone in viewing the governor of Illinois as a complete disaster. We won't go as far as State Rep. Joseph Lyons, D-Chicago, who called him a "mad man" and "insane" over the weekend. Lyons is a Democrat, the same as the governor, and probably voted for him last November. So, it seems likely, did House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, also a Democrat and one of the saner voices in Springfield this year. Gov. Rod Blagojevich described him as acting like a "right-wing Republican" in one of his rants.

A true card-carrying Republican, Rep. Michael Bost, R-Murphysboro, called for impeachment proceedings to begin against Blagojevich.

It may be going to far to call it a "constitutional" crisis just yet as it's the personalities involved -- particularly the governor -- rather than the Illinois Constitution, that is causing the problem.

But if Illinois voters -- at least those who are paying attention and are getting furious -- decide that something has to be done and that maybe the Constitution is part of the problem or, more likely, that changes in the Constitution could be used to prevent similar silliness in the future, there is not a better time for action.

In November, 2008, at the next General Election, Illinois voters will be asked if the state should convene a constitutional convention to revise or even re-draw the 1970 Illinois Constitution.

And a new constitution could be written in a way to remove legislative -- and gubernatorial -- control over some major issues.

A few that are mentioned over and over include:

* Education funding;
* The role of gambling in Illinois;
* Moral issues, such as same-sex marriage; abortion, parental notification prior to abortions for teens;
* Funding for public transportation;
* The size and composition of the General Assembly itself: return to multi-member districts; reduce the size by considering a unicameral system (one chamber) as in Nebraska;
* Reduce the size of the Executive branch: eliminate elected lieutenant governor;
combine comptroller and treasurer (and eliminate?).

There also are several issues that are close to the agenda and interests of the Illinois Civil Justice League:

* Selection of judges: merit selection rather than election;
* Public financing of judicial elections;
* Giving the legislature the authority to impose limits on damages OR
* Prohibiting the legislature from establishing limits on damages.

It would not take a lot of time or effort for fertile imaginations to develop a substantially longer list of potential constitutional issues and there are many special interest groups on all sides of every issue who would be ready to mobilize in a hurry.

It's true that a "Constitution" should be a framework for government, not encumbered with many specific issues that should be left to the elected legislators and implemented by the elected executive branch.

But when the system doesn't seem to be working -- and it clearly is not working right now -- voters have a tendency to get uneasy and in 2008, they are going to have the chance to take a first step toward making some major fundamental changes in governance in Illinois.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it IS broke, there are lots of interests that would be happy to jump in and fix it.

Cross-posted by Ed Murnane at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

Check The Source Of Judicial Election Reform Proposals

Sometimes the calls by "reformers" for "reform" deserve a close inspection.

Why are these particular people or institutions calling for these particular "reforms?"

On their surface, some "reforms" seem to make a lot of sense but a deeper look can reveal some suspicious -- if not selfish -- motivation.

Such is the case with the report circulated last week and reported locally by Kevin McDermott in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (link below).

The report points out that Illinois holds the "record" for the most expensive judicial election campaign in U.S. history (2004 Supreme Court race) and blah blah blah.

We've heard the stories before ( ...we were, in fact, in the middle of some of them ...) and there is no denying on anyone's part that the Illinois Supreme Court race in 2004 was costly. And yes, the $9.3 million raised and spent by the two campaigns (or on behalf of the two candidates) raised some eyebrows.

But there are a few points that need to be made -- or repeated since they've been made time and time again -- to put it in perspective.

First, money was not the deciding factor in the 2004 race in the Fifth Judicial District of Illinois. About $4.7 million was spent on behalf of Republican candidate Lloyd Karmeier and about $4.6 million was spent on behalf of Democrat Gordon Maag. The difference was about $100,000 -- or about 1% of the total dollars.

Second, while the Maag money was clearly and indisputably from trial lawyers and organized labor, the Karmeier support came from Fifth District voters and residents, in addition to business and medical supporters.

Check it for yourself: the final campaign spending reports of both campaigns are available at the Illinois State Board of Elections and they show what was received in final six months of 2004.

The Karmeier report is 156 pages and shows more than $500,000 in individual contributions. For the most part, these contributions are from people -- voters in the Fifth District.

The Maag report is less than half the size -- 66 pages -- and shows about $172,000 in individual contributions, about one-third of what Karmeier received from actual voters in the district. The balance of his money came from trial lawyers, funneled through the state Democratic Party.

Maag clearly was the recipient of more "special interest" money. The dollars show it. Karmeier clearly was the recipient of more Fifth district voter money.

Here's a quick refresher course on the 2004 Supreme Court election:

The race in Illinois in 2004 was driven by several factors:

1. There had been patterns of abuse in the judicial system in Southern Illinois, particularly in Madison and St. Clair Counties, for years. Voters wanted a change.

2. Voters were paying much more attention to Supreme and Appellate Court races in Illinois, particularly after the Supreme Court overturned a major civil justice reform law in 1997. It was a Madison County case and the 2004 Supreme Court election was the first since that decision

3. There was a growing shortage of doctors and access to health care in Southern Illinois and many blamed the shortage on the high cost of medical malpractice insurance and the high number of malpractice lawsuits against good doctors and hospitals in Southern Illinois.

4. The candidates were starkly different. The Democrat (Gordon Maag) was a former personal injury trial lawyer from Madison County -- exactly the kind of judge voters wanted to be rid of (and they not only defeated him in the Supreme Court race, they removed him from the Appellate Court). The Republican was a moderate-to-conservative judge from Washington County with an impeccable record and a down-to-earth demeanor.

5. It was a no-brainer for most voters and the money in the race came from voters as well as businesses, doctors and others who wanted change, who wanted to start correcting the system.

*

How this all relates to the latest published report is this:

The report referred to above is from Justice at Stake -- an organization heavily funded by trial lawyers and trial lawyer interests.

About two years ago, the ICJL conducted a thorough and comprehensive study -- and produced several reports -- on the various influences in the discussion of campaign spending and judicial election reform.

Our reports: Watching the Watchdogs and Justice at Stake can be found here. These reports -- follow the links for detail and verification -- make it pretty clear who wants to control the reform of the judicial system in the U.S.

The trial lawyers and their allies, in Illinois and elsewhere, are disturbed that other interests, including business and medical and citizens, are getting involved in judicial election campaigns, and they don't want to lose their control.

And they won't hesitate to distort the facts -- to lie -- about what really happened.

Here's a quote from Kevin McDermott's story in the Post-Dispatch referring to the 2004 Supreme Court race:

"A footnote points out that the race ranks as the second most expensive court campaign in American history, outpaced only by the $9.3 million raised in a 2004 Illinois Supreme Court campaign.

"In that Southern Illinois race, spending by Democrat Gordon Maag and Republican Lloyd Karmeier together topped $9 million for the first (and still only) time in any judicial race in U.S. history. Both candidates got millions from opposing business and legal interests with issues before the court. Karmeier won, and he remains on the bench today.

"As an example of how that kind of money can diminish the stature of a court, the report cites Karmeier's subsequent decision not to recuse himself from a case involving State Farm insurance, even though the company, its lawyers and its supporters donated more than $350,000 to his campaign.

"After rejecting calls for his recusal, Karmeier cast the deciding vote in favor of State Farm, with the divided court throwing out an earlier judgment against the company.

The report holds up the controversy as an example of why courts should institute new rules, including automatic disqualification of judges from cases in which they have received donations above a certain threshold, and better educate judges on the need to avoid even the appearance of partiality.

The truth is that Karmeier did not get $350,000 from State Farm. In fact, State Farm does not contribute to campaigns, nor to political action committees. We're not authorized to speak for State Farm but they are a member of the Illinois Civil Justice League.

State Farm employees contributed modest amounts to the Karmeier campaign and to other campaigns, as they have in previous elections. (I suspect that many of the Karmeier contributors were State Farm policy-holders.)

But because State Farm is a supporter of the Illinois Civil Justice League, and a member of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce and probably many other organizations that did support the Karmeier campaign, the trial lawyer-backed opposition stretched the truth in their effort to discredit Justice Karmeier.

There was a very clear motive behind their attack and it is a motive that extends to all of the Justice at Stake reporting, including this most recent report.

The trial lawyers and the groups they support (and which support them) do not want to lose their control over the judicial systems in many states and they especially do not want to lose control over the selection of judges in states that currently elect them, such as Illinois.

So they will continue to do what they can to paint the current systems as flawed and in need of change, whether by establishing controls on campaign contributions or the actual selection process for judges.

It's unfortunate that their self-interest motivation gets in the way of doing what's right.

With a potential Illinois Constitutional Convention on the horizon, we think a change in the process of selecting judges in Illinois should be considered and we'd be likely to support a good merit selection process. But if the trial lawyers and Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center are on the same side, we'd have to take an ever closer look.

Frankly, we don't trust them.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch News Article: Campaign Reformers Target Illinois

Justice At Stake Report

ICJL's Reports On Brennan Center, Justice At Stake

Summary of ICJL Findings -- With Web Links

Cross-posted at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

Judges Gone Wild

by Mark Swain

Judges in Washington, D.C. and right here in Illinois have recently demonstrated a conspicuous lack of fairness, proportionality, and judgment that are the traditional hallmarks of judicial office.

Welcome to what could be the next reality TV series “Judges Run Amok.”

In Washington, an administrative law judge who is paid $100,512 per year (presumably because he has the requisite judicial temperament) sued his neighborhood dry cleaning establishment, owned by Korean immigrants, for $67.3 million for losing a pair of his suit pants. Ridiculous? Outrageous? Gross abuse of judicial process? Yes! Yes! Yes!

Nonetheless, he has relentlessly pressed his suit all the way to trial. I can only imagine his early conversations with the immigrant defendants when he must have said something like, “I am a powerful judge in this city. I will squash you and your little dry cleaning shop like a bug.”

Certainly his shameful actions suggest that arrogant attitude. This judge should be summarily stripped of his robes for conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.

Meanwhile, here in Illinois, the saga of Chief Justice Thomas’ suit against the Kane County Chronicle and a reporter for that small newspaper continues. In November, a Kane County jury ordered the newspaper (circulation 14,000) to pay Justice Thomas $7 million. The presiding judge later decided the award was unreasonably high and reduced it to $4 million.

The newspaper has now filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking to overturn the verdict on the grounds that it can’t fairly appeal the multimillion defamation verdict awarded to the judge because all but two of the justices on the Supreme Court testified on his behalf, and because he is the Chief Judge of the entire judicial system in the state of Illinois. Talk about “command influence”!

The newspaper’s federal case is right on the mark. Justice Thomas’ pursuit of his defamation case is a shameful abuse of power that runs rough shod over freedom of the press and has high-jacked appellate rights guaranteed by the Illinois constitution.

Despite the jury’s verdict in favor of the Chief Judge, there have been no winners in this lawsuit.

To be sure, the Chief Justice was successfully portrayed as a hapless victim seeking vindication of his integrity. But, in filing suit against the small newspaper, he revealed an unbecoming pettiness and perpetrated a shameful abuse of the power of his office as the Chief Judicial officer in Illinois.

Public officials, and judges in particular, need thick skin. Judges’ decisions are regularly criticized by the parties, their lawyers, the press, as well as angry citizens. Criticism comes with the territory in public life. Deep down, it’s part of the job.

In every hotly contested lawsuit, it’s a virtual certainty that one of the parties will be angry and critical of the judge. They might even question his or her judicial integrity. Does that mean the judge should cash in with a lot of size-, multi-, million dollar verdicts against the disappointed litigant or angry citizen who is disgusted by the judges ruling? Of course not.

The enormous jury verdict in favor of the Chief Justice will prove to be Pyrrhic victory in all respects. In his relentless quest to vindicate his integrity regardless of the broader implications, he has demonstrated a total lack of the judgment and sense of fair play expected of a Chief Justice.

I know the Chief Justice may view my comments in this piece as critical of him. I suspect he may even be angry that I don’t support the huge verdict he has won. I just hope he doesn’t decide to sue me.

As for the pant-less Washington judge, most likely he'll be chasing ambulances and filing more frivolous lawsuits in private practice in the near future.

(Mark Swain is the pen name for an Illinois attorney who is a student and keen observer of the Illinois judiciary and judicial system.)

Cross-posted at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

Leadership in Illinois: Can We Impress Them for 2016?

As some in Illinois wait for a chance for our state to become both the attention and media center of the world -- which would happen if Chicago hosts the 2016 Olympic Games -- others are looking at the leadership of Illinois and wondering if we could/should trust our so-called "leaders" in years 2009, 2010, 2011, and following. And in 2016?

Oh, better include 2008 in the list. That's next year. Did I forget 2007?

Leadership in a state usually refers to political leadership. Not always, but most of the time. True, there are other significant leaders in addition to the politicians in power.

In a diverse and large state like Illinois, there is the business and financial leadership, the academic leadership, the medical leadership, even leadership in the athletic world but professional sports in Illinois seems to be at a low point right now.

But if political leadership is the typical standard, Illinois seems to be leaderless right now.

Our state legislature -- the elected Illinois General Assembly -- is unable to accomplish the tasks it is mandated to do. It has been unable to pass a state budget by the required May 31 deadline so now it requires a "super majority" of 60% of the legislators in each chamber of the General Assembly to enact a budget. As of today, they're not even close.

This is despite the fact that one party -- the Democrats this time -- are in complete control of all -- ALL -- branches of Illinois government. Every nook and cranny of Illinois government has a Democrat at the top.

This is not a slam at Illinois Democrats -- Illinois Republicans have failed when they've been in power, too -- but perhaps not as dramatically. Most elected Democrats in Illinois shake their head and nod in agreement: "This is a real mess."

Part of it -- a large part -- is because we have a governor who seems totally wrapped up in what will benefit him and his future (he's not thinking legacy yet).

Whether Rod Blagojevich has abandoned his earlier hopes to become President of the United States -- or simply put them on hold for now -- he steadfastly wants to remain in control. It might be control of a sinking ship but he wants to be at the helm.

Examples are easy to find. In addition to the failures of the General Assembly (which reflects on him as much as the legislative leadership), here's a typical example.

In a news story printed around Southern Illinois Sunday, it was revealed that Blagojevich has put a "gag order" on everyone not to talk about a proposed development in Southern Illinois "until he can announce it."

This is a report from Sunday's Bloomington Pantagraph:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration has ordered private developers not to talk about plans for a huge new resort near Pinckneyville until Blagojevich himself can announce it, sources say.

Some lawmakers who support the project say that public relations directive could be endangering the proposal.

“People have asked, ‘If these (developers) are credible, why don’t they answer the phone?’” said state Sen. David Luechtefeld, R-Okawville. He is among several lawmakers who say they learned late last week of the administration’s gag order, and now are pressing to have it lifted.

This lack of respect for the General Assembly is not new. Last week, Blagojevich complained about the General Assembly's work schedule during the overtime session while news outlets reported on his lack of regular attendance in Springfield and his frequent mid-day, mid-week jogging appearances near his Chicago home.

*
Unfortunately, this is the view of Illinois that the world is seeing:

a state that is in political disarray, but a state that wants to host the 2016 Olympics.

This is a state in which the leaders of ONE party -- the controlling party -- cannot agree on major state issues but the governor can find time to sign a controversial bill into law because it has the backing of his buddies at the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (HB 1798, the "grief and sorrow" bill). It may not have been signed in record time, but it was close.

And this is a state that will have a referendum in November 2008 on the question of having a Constitutional Convention, or not.

Last week, the House passed a resolution -- barely, it was 48-47 -- in favor on Illinois calling a Constitutional Convention. The issue will be on the ballot in 2008, as is required by the 1970 Constitution.

A Constitutional Convention provides a rare opportunity to Illinois citizens (not necessarily politicians) to look at the state's Constitution (ours was drafted in 1970) and decide if any fundamental changes need to be made.

Do we need to take a new look? It's been 37 years and many things have changed. School funding, gambling, electronic communications ... all are issues that might need to be viewed with a 2008 (or 2010) eye, rather than the 1970 eye that produced the current document.

I was a reporter in 1970-71 and covered the Illinois Constitutional Convention. While political pressures were certainly involved, the delegates (non-legislators) were committed to drafting (and enacting) a good document for the State of Illinois. They succeeded.

There are some fundamental issues that ought to be revisited in a new constitutional convention, issues such as the best procedure for selecting judges in Illinois. There are others.

Unfortunately, the atmosphere of cooperation and progress of 1970 doesn't exist in Illinois in 2007 -- and is unlikely in 2008 or 2010. We have a governor who may still be in office and who makes no decision that doesn't seem to be benefiting his image. We have pressures by special interest groups that didn't exist in 1970. We have communications methods that weren't even imagined in 1970.

Yet we have a need for some serious change, for some serious reform, and if it doesn't happen -- or even have a chance to happen -- some of our "leaders" need to look in the mirror.

Click here to view the resolution calling for a constitutional convention.

Cross-posted at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

81,000 Lawyers in Illinois; Who Speaks for Them?

Why do 81,000 lawyers in Illinois allow a small handful -- about 3% -- to brand them?Most of the lawyers in our state probably have not asked themselves that question -- but it is a valid question. The image of lawyers in Illinois is painted by the television advertising and media self-promotion of the personal injury trial lawyers -- the plaintiffs' lawyers who attract the big attention with their big lawsuits and big settlements or awards.

But 97 percent of the lawyers in Illinois don't deserve the tarnish that is applied to them by the plaintiffs' trial lawyers. The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) claims a membership of more than 2,000. According to the ITLA Web site:

"The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association is a statewide organization whose members specialize in representing injured consumers and workers. Founded in 1952, the organization currently has over 2,000 members."

And last month, the Illinois State Bar Association launched an advertising campaign costing nearly $300,000 to fix the image of all lawyers in Illinois -- an image tarnished primarily by the plaintiffs' lawyers of ITLA.

There is no doubt that ISBA is heavily dominated by ITLA. In Springfield, it's hard -- virtually impossible -- to tell them apart.

When Illinois businesses -- and Illinois citizens -- think of lawyers in Illinois they are reminded of the advertising they see on television, heavily dominated by personal injury lawyers. They are reminded of the hostile, anti-business and anti-doctor and anti-hospital messages conveyed by ITLA on it's Web site and in testimony in Springfield.

Nearly 800 new lawyers were sworn-in last week and if the percentages hold up, about three percent -- or 24 of them -- will become plaintiffs' lawyers. We suspect the number will be higher than that because that's where the money is but whatever the number, the vast majority will have to deal with the image of lawyers created by a small minority.

And the prospects for change don't seem promising when the other big lawyer story of the weekend is the election of ISBA's new third vice president is another ITLA member from Southern Illinois. Under ISBA's secession rules, Mark D. Hassakis will become president in 2010.

Cross-posted by Ed Murnane at Illinois Justice Blog.

Technorati Tags: Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois lawsuit abuse, trial lawyer, tort reform, Illinois Civil Justice League

Read more...

Watch the other rings, too

While the circus is believed to have had its origin in ancient Rome, the three-ring circus is an American creation, dating back to the 1800s. The traveling Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus made the term "three ring circus" well known and millions of Americans of all ages enjoyed the spectacle.

Usually, the center ring was the primary act and lesser performances would take place in the two outer rings. Most of the attention - sometimes all - would be on the star performers in the center ring.

That seems to be happening in Illinois today, in Springfield.

While the center ring has featured the governor and his proposed gross receipts tax, opposed by virtually everyone with any sense of fiscal responsibility (including his lieutenant governor, comptroller and treasurer) other acts are attracting less attention.

In the second ring we see the debate over electricity rates, interspersed with an occasional news item about indictments in Chicago or the qualifications of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

It must all be good theater because that’s all that seems to be attracting any attention.

But way over there, in the third ring, is a show that nobody seems to be paying attention to. It’s the performance being produced by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and their willing props, members of the Illinois General Assembly.

Almost completely ignored has been the assault by personal injury lawyers in Illinois on the business community, on the medical community, on local governments and, ultimately, on the taxpaying citizens of Illinois.

Three troubling trial lawyer proposals are currently moving toward passage, with the agreement (and complicity) of more than half the members of the Illinois General Assembly:

The first proposal - SB 1296, which passed the Senate last week - would invalidate the time-tested and logical procedure that says the person or entity most responsible for causing injury or damage should be most responsible for providing compensation or relief. Instead, the trial lawyer proposal would change it to put the burden on the person or entity with the most money, regardless of percentage of fault. Even if you were 1% at fault, you could be liable for 100% of the compensation awarded. If you happen to be a municipality ... or a corporation ... or a hospital ... or an individual with any resources ... and you're named in a suit, whether frivolous or not, chances are you're going to be stuck with the tab.

The second proposal would allow trial lawyers to collect even more for medical costs than has actually been paid and would prohibits admission of evidence that payments by insurers have been made in compliance with agreements or contracts between hospitals, doctors and insurers. This bill, SB 747, was blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee but the language of the bill has now been amended to SB 1027, which had already been advanced from the Senate Executive Committee to the floor of the Senate. The bill awaits final passage in the Senate, which is likely this week. This is an indication of the greed and tactics of the personal injury trial lawyers and their allies.

A third proposal would provide yet another source of revenue for personal injury trial lawyers. HB 1798, sponsored by Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago, would allow compensation to be paid to beneficiaries of decedents in wrongful death cases for "grief and sorrow." Not just for actual loss, which can be calculated, but for "grief and sorrow," which cannot be calculated.

Of course, regardless of whether it can be calculated or cannot be calculated, the personal injury trial lawyers will get their cut of the "grief and sorrow."

While this assault on fairness has been largely ignored in the public square, so also has been the effort by civil justice reform advocates to restore -- or create -- some balance in the system. Unfortunately, the trial lawyer allies in the legislature have been successful in shooting down many of these reform proposals.

For instance, a bill (SB 1549 and HB 1896) to set standards for testimony by "experts" in court rooms in the aftermath of wide-spread exposure of "junk science" was shot down in both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Another bill (HB 1892) to establish some sensible guidelines for litigation venue (i.e. where a suit can or should be filed) was given a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee but no action was taken and none is likely.

Ironically, even the judges in Madison County, which has long been considered the poster boy for improper venue, have agreed that some changes need to be made.

Illinois legislators, however, do not agree.

Other bills would have tightened standards on evidence in asbestos lawsuits (HB 1897), clarified rules for class action lawsuits (HB 1893) and restore product liability laws that had been in effect in 1995-1997 (HB 1898).

But alas, the trial lawyer-controlled General Assembly will have nothing to do with any of the overdue reforms and the news media, alas again, is reveling in the action in the center ring.

To view or post comments, please visit Illinois Justice Blog.

Technorati Tags: trial lawyer, tort reform, Illinois Civil Justice League

Read more...