Showing posts with label Illinois Civil Justice League. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illinois Civil Justice League. Show all posts

Saturday, October 20, 2007

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...

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

ICJL Releases Their Legislative Scorecard

The Illinois Civil Justice League today released a mid-session scorecard tracking the voting records - on civil justice issues - of all members of the Illinois General Assembly. This scorecard reflects the roll call votes on the floor of the House and Senate, as well as committee votes on and sponsorships of bills that are important to the Illinois civil justice reform effort.

By looking at roll call votes, committee votes and bill sponsorships, ICJL has produced the most detailed legislative scorecard – on any issue - in the state of Illinois.

“It is important that Illinois voters know where their legislators stand on issues relating to the reform of our state’s troubled legal system,” said Edward Murnane, president of ICJL. “For too long, the personal injury trial lawyers have held too much clout in Springfield, advancing their stealth agenda of increasing their profits at the expense of hard-working Illinois citizens. This scorecard enables the average voter to know if his or her legislator stands with them – or with the trial lawyers.”

The scorecard assigns each legislator a percentage scored based on the number of times he or she supported or opposed a key bill. ICJL then highlighted the best and worst scores through the following groups:

FRIENDS OF FAIRNESS – This group highlights those legislators who exhibited an exemplary voting record on civil justice reform issues by having an aggregate score of 75% or higher. The legislators honored in this group are:

Illinois Senate “Friends of Fairness”

· Senator Bill Brady
· Senator J. Bradley Burzynski
· Senator Kirk W. Dillard
· Senator John O. Jones
· Senator Chris Lauzen
· Senator David Luechtefeld
· Senator Matt Murphy
· Senator Dan Rutherford
· Senator Dave Syverson
· Senator Frank Watson

Illinois House “Friends of Fairness”

· Rep. Suzanne Bassi
· Rep. Bob Biggins
· Rep. Tom Cross
· Rep. Brent Hassert
· Rep. Sidney H. Mathias
· Rep. Chapin Rose
· Rep. Timothy L. Schmitz
· Rep. Ron Stephens

“We feel that it is only right to honor and call attention to those legislators who consistently support common sense lawsuit reform – and reject the trial lawyer agenda,” said Murnane, who added that the scorecard also recognizes those legislators who consistently support trial lawyer-backed policies as members of the “Trial Lawyer Caucus.”

TRIAL LAWYER CAUCUS – Although there were many legislators who supported the majority of trial lawyer measures, the Trial Lawyer Caucus represents those who were especially vigilant in supporting the anti-civil justice reform agenda: those who had an aggregate score of 15% or lower:

Illinois Senate Trial Lawyer Caucus

· Senator Michael Bond
· Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins
· Senator M. Maggie Crotty
· Senator John J. Cullerton
· Senator William Delgado
· Senator Michael W. Frerichs
· Senator Susan Garrett
· Senator Debbie DeFrancesco Halvorson
· Senator Don Harmon
· Senator Mattie Hunter
· Senator David Koehler
· Senator Dan Kotowski
· Senator Terry Link
· Senator Edward D. Maloney
· Senator Iris Y. Martinez
· Senator Michael Noland
· Senator Carol Ronen
· Senator Martin A. Sandoval
· Senator Jeffrey M. Schoenberg
· Senator Ira I. Silverstein

Illinois House “Trial Lawyer Caucus”

· Rep. Edward J. Acevedo
· Rep. James D. Brosnahan
· Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie
· Rep. William Davis
· Rep. Mary E. Flowers
· Rep. John A. Fritchey
· Rep. Careen M. Gordon
· Rep. Deborah L. Graham
· Rep. Julie Hamos
· Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez
· Rep. Jay C. Hoffman
· Rep. Kevin Joyce
· Rep. Lou Lang
· Rep. Kevin A. McCarthy
· Rep. George Scully Jr.
· Rep. Cynthia Soto

The full scorecard, with analysis, can be viewed online at http://www.icjl.org/.

Read more...

Monday, July 30, 2007

Jury Reform: More Pay And Get People Who Care

Madeline Byrne, as the Associated Press story below describes, was a bit surprised -- and not happy -- when she received her summons to report for jury duty in Sanford, N.C.

Madeline didn't receive her summons as most of us do -- deposited in our mail box. She received hers when a local sheriff handed it to her through an open window in her car.

The AP reports:

The 64-year-old woman was ordered to report for jury duty a little more than an hour later at the Lee County courthouse in Sanford, N.C. When Byrne protested, the sheriff told her: "Be there or you'll be in contempt."

We don't issue a jury summons that way in Illinois but we do have a jury system that needs serious reform, serious tweaking.

One of the most critical reforms is an increase in jury compensation. If Madeline Byrne had been in Illinois, you could understand why she didn't want to be a juror.

While jurors are expected to be compensated, in Illinois they are practically volunteers. Illinois law spells out that jurors be paid between $4 per day and $40 per day. That's right: a juror in Illinois could be summoned to serve for compensation of $4 for a day.

We're not sure if that ridiculous fee is in practice in any Illinois counties but we do know that jurors in the largest county, Cook, receive less than $20 for a full days' service. A juror who can't use public transportation but must drive can not find parking for less than $20 within a reasonable distance of the courthouse.

There are other serious problems with our jury system in Illinois and one of the major obstacles to reform have been -- surprise, surprise -- the people who proclaim they are the "guardians and defenders of the right to trial by jury."

That's right, the plaintiffs' attorneys in Illinois -- represented and directed by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and their partner, the Illinois State Bar Association, have been the primary opponents of jury reform in Illinois.

There have been several attempts to improve the "jury problem' in Illinois, including earlier this year, but they have been stymied.

On several occasions, the Illinois Civil Justice League has proposed legislation that would begin correcting the problem. It has been a bipartisan effort with Senate sponsorship provided by Chicago Democrat John Cullerton, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and DuPage County Republican, Kirk Dillard, the Co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Earlier this year, SB 1548 was introduced by Senator Dillard. A comprehensive jury reform package that included most elements of a bill passed by the Illinois Senate just two years ago, it was doomed from the start.The reason?

Senate President Emil Jones wanted to reform the jury act too, but only by expanding the eligible jury pool to add low income people.

The bill as introduced would have expanded the jury pool to include Illinois citizens claiming an earned income tax credit.

In response, the Illinois Civil Justice League proposed an amendment that would have expanded the jury lists to include all citizens on the tax rolls. In addition, the ICJL amendment would have included some other jury reforms that had been approved in recent years by the entire Senate. However, the Senate Democrat leadership was not receptive to our proposals and the bill was kept in the Rules Committee, despite the fact that identical language had been passed almost unanimously (58-1) by the Senate only a few years earlier. The ICJL intends to redraft a jury reform proposal for consideration next year and it will include these elements, some of which are new:
    1. Jurors must be registered voters.
    2. Juror must speak English fluently.
    3. Jurors must be fairly compensated, especially in lengthy trials.
    4. Employers must be protected from having too many employees on jury duty at one time.
Current law in many states, including Illinois does not require that a prospective juror be a registered voter. A registered voter gets on the eligibles list, but so do licensed drivers. So will people on the "earned income tax credit list" if Senator Jones and the bill's sponsor, Sen. Don Harmon, have their way.

It just seems logical that if a person is qualified (or wants to be viewed as qualified) to serve on a jury, that person ought to have demonstrated an interest and willingness to participate in the American system of governance, which includes being eligible to vote.

cross-posted by Ed Murmane at Illinois Justice Blog

Read more...

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Callis Passes Big Test With Skeptical Audience

Ann Callis traveled 300 miles from Madison County to Cook County to appear before an audience that has been highly critical of her courthouse for decades. In a sense, it was a jury sitting in judgment of the judicial system in Madison County and Ann Callis, Chief Judge of the Third Judicial District, was the top witness -- maybe even the defendant.

Callis was the featured speaker at the annual luncheon of the Illinois Civil Justice League, an organization that has been in the forefront in criticizing the Madison County court system and several of its judges for more than a decade.

The fact that Callis was invited to speak -- and that she accepted -- were both signals that times are changing in Madison County.

This was not the first time the Chief Judge has met with the Illinois Civil Justice League to discuss ways of improving the perception, and the reality, of the Madison County Court system. One meeting was held shortly before last November's election when Callis was seeking retention, and four other meetings have been held, including two involving Illinois doctors and hospitals.

Last Thursday's event, however, was not a small meeting with one of two ICJL staff and a handful of officials from the Illinois State Medical Society or the Illinois Hospital Association.

Thursday's audience included leaders of major national civil justice reform groups, including the American Tort Reform Association, the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform and the American Justice Partnership.

Other attendees included more than a dozen representatives of major U.S. corporations who were in Chicago for a meeting of the Civil Justice Reform Group.

The presidents of the Illinois Business Roundtable and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce were there as were the presidents and chairman of the Illinois State Medical Society and ISMIE Mutual.

Callis had moral support -- three colleagues from the Madison County judiciary also attended: Judge Dan Stack and Associate Judges Tom Chapman and Steve Stobbs.

But this was not an easy audience for the Chief Judge of the most talked-about judicial jurisdiction in the United States. This was not an audience of students at Edwardsville High School.

And she passed, with flying colors.

When she described the first change in procedures to be implemented in Madison County -- a procedure to eliminate "judge shopping' in class action cases and close a trial lawyer loophole, the audience responded with applause.

She talked about other changes including requiring arbitration and mediation before trials and she made it clear that she, as Chief Judge, wants to correct the judicial system in Madison County and there was no disagreement from her colleagues in the room. In fact, she said all the changes that have been implemented or proposed (some require Illinois Supreme Court approval) have been agreed to unanimously by the circuit judges in Madison and Bond counties (which make up the Third Circuit).

The impact of the reform of the Madison County judiciary will be felt over a period of time, not overnight. But that period of time may be shorter than anticipated. Already there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of problem lawsuits in Madison County and if trial lawyers, particularly those from out of state and the bottom-feeders, realize the game has changed in Madison County, the positive impact will be felt quickly.

Callis -- and her colleagues -- deserve credit for what is happening. And they need encouragement to keep it going. They'll get both credit and encouragement from Thursday's audience.Judge Ann Callis won a lot of respect from a tough audience last Thursday.

Cross-posted by Ed Murnane at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

Monday, July 09, 2007

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...

Monday, June 25, 2007

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...

Monday, June 18, 2007

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...

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

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...

Monday, June 04, 2007

Celebrations All Around -- Or Maybe Not

The happy scene portrayed in the photo at right took place in August, 2005, when Governor Blagojevich signed SB 475, now Public Act 94-677, the medical malpractice reform bill of 2005.

Some of the people behind him, in white coats, are physicians or other health-care professionals who joined him for the signing ceremony. It was held in Madison County, an area of Illinois that had been a hot bed in the fight for medical malpractice liability reform. Blagojevich - not a supporter of med-mal reform - realized that this was an issue he should jump on since it was approved in the General Assembly.

Hence, the Blago machine helped script and structure the event and the Governor himself showed up at St. Anthony's Hospital in Alton to sign the bill.

The happy scene portrayed in the second photo at right took place on May 31, 2007 -- last Thursday -- when Governor Blagojevich signed Public Act 95-003 into law. P.A. 95-003 had been referred to as the "grief and sorrow" bill. It was a trial lawyer-initiated bill and the primary impact of it will be more money for trial lawyers. True, the new law will provide financial compensation for the "grief and sorrow" that relatives of some decedents suffer in connection with the death of a family member.

As if money will really help anyone, except the trial lawyers who will collect their contingency fees.

There was no big signing ceremony for HB 1798 -- now P.A. 95-003. Neither the governor nor the trial lawyers -- nor anyone -- wanted to focus any more attention on this bill so it was signed ... when? ... who knows? It might have been in a dark alley behind the Capitol or in some local trial lawyers' office.

The Governor knows it is a bad law; the legislators who voted for it know it’s bad; trial lawyers know it’s bad law -- but it's good for them. They wanted no attention focused on this bill-signing. Perhaps Blagojevich’s almost-fistfight with Sen. Mike Jacobs was just one of many attempts to distract the media and others from this signing. (Jacobs, by the way, voted "NO" so maybe that's another reason Blagojevich was upset with him.)

Maybe it’s an encouraging sign when the Governor and his colleagues in the General Assembly realize when they are doing something that’s bad and don’t want to call any more attention to it than is necessary.

Maybe Governor Blagojevich realized that HB 1798 was so distasteful that he should sign it with as little attention as possible -- before the Citizens of Illinois (including doctors, hospitals, businesses, etc.) had a chance to say, "Hey, Gov, you ought to read that bill and think twice about it and veto it."

But he didn't -- although he did get those calls -- and HB 1798, now PA 95-003, is the law in Illinois.

The Governor's action, the trial lawyers' action in proposing such a bill, and the action by members of the Illinois General Assembly who voted for it, all seem very fitting for a legislative session that has been favorably described as a disaster.

And it's a legislative session that still goes on because the party in control of the Legislative and Executive branches of Illinois government seems incapable of leading and governing.

Maybe this is also one of the reasons the good guys - that’s us and our allies -were able to slow down any progress on another of the absolutely outrageous trial lawyer bills, SB 1296.

Whatever the reasons, SB 1296 was slowed down/stopped - at least for this session.

Maybe it was because legislators who actually looked at that bill thought - or asked - are they kidding?

Maybe it was because legislators heard from a LOT of constituents who had serious concerns and legislators themselves developed serious questions.

Maybe it was because opposition came from unanticipated sources: Chicago, local governments, including municipalities and park districts.

Whatever the reason, SB 1296 is on hold right now and maybe forever, at least in its present form. Those who opposed it because of what it would do should be prepared to resume the fight - perhaps not in November but certainly next year - because the proponents will figure out a way to make it seem like nothing more than a clarification of intended law that assures fairness for everyone, especially the most seriously injured. And a lot of Illinois legislators will swallow that baloney sandwich.

So keep the powder dry.

Cross-posted at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Yet another op-ed opposing the trial lawyers' 'deep pockets' bill ...

Steven Puiszis, president of the Illinois Association of Defense Counsel and a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, writes a great op-ed in this morning's Springfield State Journal-Register:

The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association have been wielding its political influence to push Senate Bill 1296.

Tuesday, they went so far as to run an advertisement in The State Journal-Register claiming that Senate Bill 1296 is intended to “protect Illinois families” and to “make sure guilty parties are held accountable.” In fact, Senate Bill 1296 will have the exact opposite effect.

How exactly does the trial lawyers’ plan work in Senate Bill 1296? Imagine you are driving home from work and approaching you in the oncoming lane of traffic is a drunken driver. He crosses into your lane of traffic and plows into the car ahead of you. Unable to stop in time, you skid into the same car from behind. There is minimal damage to your car because the impact was minor and you were not hurt. But the driver of the car hit by the drunken driver is badly injured and he sues both you and the drunken driver. The drunken driver has no money and no insurance, so the injured party settles with him for little or nothing.

Under current Illinois law, the jury will determine your percentage of fault for the accident by taking into consideration the fault of the drunken driver. If the jury determines that the fault of the drunken driver is 90 percent, your fault is only 10 percent. Allowing the jury to consider the fault of all parties makes common sense and provides for a fair outcome.
Click here to read the full commentary.

We also invite you to visit http://www.deeppocketsillinois.com/ to learn more about how you can stop this trial lawyer money grab.

Read more...

Thursday, May 17, 2007

A slap in the face at fairness

SB 1296 - the trial lawyers' 'Deep Pockets' bill - passed the House Judiciary Committee yesterday on a straight party line vote. According to this story, a full House floor vote is expected next week.

Here's ICJL's response:

"This bill is a slap in the face at fairness, it is a slap in the face of Illinois employers, and it is a slap in the face of common sense," said Ed Murnane, president of ICJL, who pointed out that, under SB 1296, a defendant could be held 100 percent liable in a lawsuit where he or she is only five percent at fault.

Added Murnane, "Fairness and common sense demand that people or institutions that cause injury and damage should be held accountable based on their degree of responsibility - not the deepness of their pocketbook."

Murnane noted that the legislation is opposed by a diverse coalition of groups, including many units of government, such as the City of Chicago, Illinois Municipal League, Illinois Association of Park Districts, the Park District Risk Management Association and the 77-member municipalities of the Illinois Risk Management Association.

"Cities, counties and other municipal bodies are considered 'deep pockets' because they can raise funds through taxation, and would be prime targets under this legislation," said Murnane.

Contact your legislators today to urge them to vote "No" on this disastrous bill.

Cross-posted at Illinois Justice Blog.

Read more...

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

"Stuff" Happens. That's Why We Need Trial Lawyers


As the Illinois Civil Justice League continues to fight reform's to Illinois' Wrongful Death Act, to hold wrongdoers accountable when they take a life, this story breaks:

Wal-Mart issues voluntary recall of lead-containing baby bibs

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. Wal-Mart today voluntarily recalled sets of baby bibs from its stores in Illinois and New York after they tested positive for high levels of lead.The bibs were sold under the Baby Connection brand name and came with embroidered prints or images of Sesame Street characters.....

....Wal-Mart spokeswoman Nia Masten says the vinyl portion of the bibs exceeded the lead levels set by Illinois for children's products. Masten says about 60-thousand of the bib bundles were sold in Illinois without any reported injuries. (emphasis added)


First of all, I'm hoping that someone can explain to me what is considered a safe level of lead for children's products.

Secondly, I hope someone can explain to Wal-Mart that symptoms of lead poisoning often go undetected and can take years to present themselves. Effects of lead poisoning on the brain, digestive system, and kidneys can include: low IQ, memory loss, hyperactivity, hearing loss, weight loss and kidney failure. And yes, it can be fatal. Moreover, here's what pediatricians recommend:

If your child has any of these symptoms of lead poisoning and he is at risk for lead exposure then you should see your doctor immediately. Most children with lead poisoning do not have any symptoms, so if your child is at risk you should still have him tested even if he is not having any problems.

Some effects of lead poisoning, such as poor school performance because of a low IQ, do not show up until a child is much older, at which time they will probably have a normal lead level, and so may not be attributed to lead poisoning. (emphasis added)


I hope that everyone who purchased these bibs has their child tested for lead poisoning ASAP. I hope that those of you who like to spend alot of time ragging about the trial lawyers will take a step back for a moment, and remember that sometimes "stuff" happens, and that's why we need trial lawyers.

Read more...

Friday, April 20, 2007

Hypothetically Speaking......


The Rock Island Argus/Dispatch prints one of the craziest, most rambling, incredulous editorials I've read in a long while, and that's saying something. Their jihad against pending legislation that would prevent the insurance industry from opening a loophole in Illinois' civil laws reads like a verbatim press release from the Illinois Civil Justice League from start to finish, and they probably should have charged them their standard advertising rates for it.

The most embarrassing passage from the entire piece is this:

Consider this scenario offered by the Illinois Justice League, which has launched a campaign, DeepPocketsIllinois.com, to oppose the measure:

"Imagine that while traveling home from Springfield you get hit by a drunk driver. Neither you nor the other driver is injured, but a passenger riding with the drunk driver is thrown from the vehicle and severely injured. To add insult to injury, the drunken driver has no insurance.

"Although you were minimally at fault, the lawyers for the injured passenger settle out of court with the drunk driver. Now they are suing you for the full amount of damage. It doesn't seem fair that you and your insurance company should be on the hook for the full amount of damages, when you were only minimally at fault. Unfortunately, if the trial lawyers successfully pass 1296, situations like these could become typical civil procedure in Illinois courts."

Hold it right there, guys.

First, when was the last time you saw an editorial board advertise the website address of an interest group in its editorial? Never, maybe?

When was the last time you saw an editorial board provide a 127 word verbatim quote (six direct quotes in all) of a registered special interest group in an editorial? Never, maybe?

Finally, the bogus hypothetic question. When in Illinois do they think that a jury of 12 people is going to award a penny to someone dumb enough to get into a car with a drunk, unlicensed driver, then ram another car, and blame the driver whose car they hit? How about a lawyer dumb enough to take that case, knowing they'll never get paid? Never, maybe?

The Illinois Civil Justice League's hypothetical question might as well have started out "Imagine while traveling home from Mars...."

I've got a better hypothetical question:

Imagine the Illinois Civil Justice League -- backed by the Insurance Industry -- has given $2 million to Republican candidates over the last decade.

Imagine that the biggest business in Rock Island, John Deere, has given $200,000 to Republican candidates over the last decade.

Imagine that one of the biggest purchasers of advertising in the Rock Island Argus/Dispatch is that region's largest employer, John Deere.

Finally, imagine that both John Deere and the Illinois Civil Justice League wanted to prevent Democrats from closing a legal loophole (being created by activist judges) that would benefit insurance companies and big businesses -- at the expense of injured every day citizens -- and maybe even help elect a few Republicans in the process.

Hmmm....I wonder who John Deere and the ICJL could call on?

Sadly, that's not to hard to imagine at all.

The phone numbers for the Rock Island Argus/Dispatch can be found here.

[Hat Tip, CapitolFax]

Read more...

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

How Over the Top is the ICJL?

Backed by the insurance industry and out-of-state big business interests, the Illinois Civil Justice League continues it's hard campaign to try to justify its continued existence. As I listen to their "the sky is falling" rhetoric, I'm reminded of a recent interview with Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who said interest groups do a disservice to themselves by adopting extreme positions and over-the-top rhetoric, mainly in an attempt to try to justify their existence and keep the cash flowing in from their extreme backers. Luntz was talking about groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), but he could have just as easily been talking about the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL).

Enter Senate Bill 1296. According to the ICJL, 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. It will be the party with the "deepest pockets" or most money who pays. It doesn't matter who is mostly at fault, it matters who has the most money.

The insurance companies backing the ICJL are the same guys who claimed that requiring insurance companies to cover preventative services like mammograms would drive up the cost of health care, so I don't take anything they say at face value. So, I read the bill. Here's what SB 1296 actually says. All that it says:

The apportionment of fault under this Section only applies to the parties still remaining in the case at the time of the final determination by the trier of fact. It does not apply to the defendants or third party defendants that have been dismissed for any reason, including settlement.

In other words, a jury can't find someone guilty -- apportion blame and demand payment for damages from them -- if they are no longer on trial because they've been dismissed from the case or have already settled.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I took several classes on democracy in college and consider myself fairly well versed on the democratic ideals of justice. And, for the life of me, I can't understand how the ICJL can argue that a jury should be able to find someone guilty and sentence them if that person is not on trial because they've been dismissed from the case. Somewhere tucked away inside all of our Constitutional Rights regarding due process, I think we're entitled to know that we're on trial and be represented by counsel before a jury finds us guilty.

I also can't understand how the ICJL can argue that a jury can find someone guilty for something and demand restitution, when that individual has essentially already pleaded guilty and accepted punishment. Don't we call that "double jeopardy"?

Speaking of PETA

The ICJL finds itself making some very strange bedfellows in it's opposition to House Bill 1798 as well, which amends the Wrongful Death Act to hold murderers, drunk drivers, and others who unlawfully take a life accountable for the grief and sorrow they've caused under Illinois' civil laws. The ICJL believes that if you take a life, you should only be liable for the victim's lost wages and medical expenses (if they lived that long), so that killing a minor, a senior citizen, or a poor person will cost you nothing.

Here, I do have some expertise. My best friend was murdered when we were only 17 years old. The State's Attorney struck a plea deal with the two guys who broke into his house and stabbed him to death for Second Degree Murder, 14 years. The Ringleader was out in seven, and later had his record expunged by Gov. Ryan. Because of Illinois' arcane Wrongful Death Act, his family received no restitution for the lifetime of pain they got, including returning home day after day to the scene of their own son's murder. I got to be a pallbearer my senior year of high school.

I mentioned PETA earlier, and ironically under Illinois law, you are entitled to restitution for grief and suffering if someone kills your pet. I humbly submit that people deserve at least the same consideration as animals.

(before the PETA folks freak out on me, the bassethound with the knife in his head is a Halloween costume, and I love dogs. In fact, I put PETA a step above the ICJL.)


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: , ,

Digg!

Read more...

Monday, March 12, 2007

Who IS ICJL/Deep Pockets Illinois? Follow the Money.

The Illinois Civil Justice League has launched a new propaganda campaign, "Deep Pockets Illinois," aimed at thwarting the passage of Senate Bill 1296. If you believe ICJL's Ed Murnane, the world is about to come to an end.

I'll have more about the bill later, but before we get into the nitty-gritty of why the ICJL claims that legislation that merely codifies 20 years of judicial practice will bring the world to an end, I think it's fair to take a deeper look at just who's behind the ICJL and their political arm, JUSTPAC.

According to the ICJL, they are "a coalition of Illinois citizens, small and large businesses, associations, professional societies, not-for-profit organizations and local governments." Unfortunately, there's no way to verify that claim because nowhere does the ICJL disclose who actually funds them.

Fortunately, the ICJL's political arm, JUSTPAC, is required to disclose where their money comes from. So I went to the State Board of Elections website, and low and behold......

  • More than half of JUSTPAC's funding comes from outside of Illinois;
  • Fewer than 100 donors to JUSTPAC come from Illinois, but
  • Nearly one-third of in-state donors have direct ties to the insurance industry;

And where does JUSTPAC's money go? Since 1994, JUSTPAC has given:

  • $2,094,662.60 to 80 Republican candidates in Illinois.
  • $500.00 to one Democrat.

Draw your own conclusions about who's interests JUSTPAC is looking out for. I believe that "he who pays the piper calls the tune," and if you:
  • Live in Illinois, and
  • don't work for the insurance industry, and
  • Aren't a GOP candidate for office
JUSTPAC isn't working for you.

Read more...

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP