Illinois Civil Justice League

ICJL Blog Restarts, Moves To New Address

2006-07-20T09:39:00.000-07:00

The ICJL Blog has restarted and has moved to a new, more permanent address.

You can now find the ICJL Blog at:
http://www.illinoisjusticeblog.com/

Warning Labels: Soda

2005-07-27T11:00:00.000-07:00

IlliniPundit questions the Center for Science in the Public Interest's move to require warning labels on soda cans. In the petition the CSPI presented the FDA, the group suggests the warning label would include the following:

The U.S. Government recommends that you drink less (non-diet) soda to help prevent weight gain, tooth decay, and other health problems.
To help protect your waistline and your teeth, consider drinking diet sodas or water.
Drinking soft drinks instead of milk or calcium-fortified beverages may increase your risk of brittle bones (osteoporosis).

IlliniPundit states: "First, the nanny-staters want warning labels. Second, they push for restrictions on consumption. Third, a total ban. Because some behaviors are just too tempting and too dangerous, and they don’t trust people to make decisions for themselves."

However, the missing fourth element might read:

Fourth, the nanny-staters will then work with powerful plaintiffs lawyers to eliminate or bankrupt the manufacturer.

This is the case in so many different products, from ladders to football helmets to cheeseburgers.

Most warning labels are the result of frivolous lawsuits, though. Consider these Wacky Warning Labels, presented by the Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, that undoubtedly are the result of litigation or the fear of litigation:

A flushable toilet brush that warns users: "Do not use for personal hygiene."
A popular scooter for children that warns: "This product moves when used."
A digital thermometer that can be used to take a person's temperature several different ways, warns: "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally."
An electric hand blender promoted for use in "blending, whipping, chopping and dicing," that warns: "Never remove food or other items from the blades while the product is operating."
A nine- by three-inch bag of air used as packing material that carries this warning: "Do not use this product as a toy, pillow, or flotation device."

M-LAW's Robert Dorigo Jones adds: "Warning labels are a sign of our lawsuit-plagued times. From the moment we raise our head in the morning off pillows that bear those famous 'Do Not Remove' warnings, to when we drop back in bed at night, we are overwhelmed with warnings. Plaintiff’s lawyers who file the lawsuits that prompt these warnings argue they are making us safer, but the warnings have become so long that few of us read them anymore-- even the ones we should read."

Maybe what we really need is a warning label on lawyers:

Warning: The actions you and your lawyer take in our public court system will have a dramatic effect on economic and personal freedoms you and your neighbors currently enjoy. Proceed with caution, future legal precedents will raise the price of goods and services, diminish your ability to access quality products and healthcare, and restrict your right to participate in many worthwhile activities.

Criticism Stacks in Anti-Stacking Case

2005-06-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

Ted Frank at Overlawyered.com recently examined a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case that help illustrates exactly why Madison County has earned its negative reputation as the #1 Judicial Hellhole in America.

In the case (Grinnell Select Insurance Company v. Martha Baker), the judges were asked to look at Illinois law in regards to anti-stacking provisions in insurance policies.

According to Ted:

Though the policy language was clear, the task was made trickier because the Fifth District Appellate Court of Illinois--the appellate court for Madison County and much of southern Illinois--had issued two decisions that contradicted Illinois Supreme Court decisions in an effort to read anti-stacking provisions out of the policy.

If you think Ted is critical in this instance, just read what the Court of Appeals had to say in its decision:

It is hard to imagine clearer language. But it is not enough for one state appellate court. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, has held in two decisions that, when the declarations page of a policy contains the language "insurance is provided where a premium is shown", the policy is ambiguous notwithstanding an explicit antistacking clause, because an insured might read the language "insurance is provided" to permit stacking.

The judges then point out that not only did two other courts in Illinois arrive at different conclusions than the Fifth District, but no other court in the nation seems to hold the same opinion as the Fifth District:

As far as we can tell, the Fifth District stands alone among the 50 state judicial systems. The policy Grinnell issued — with a declarations page listing multiple cars, premiums, and coverages separately, and then a clause stating that the limit for one car and one accident is the total available no matter how many vehicles or premiums are shown in the declarations — is the standard auto liability form devised by the Insurance Services Office and is in use across the nation. Defendants did not cite, and we could not find, any decision outside the Fifth District allowing stacking.

In other words, even though Grinnell used a standard auto liability contract - in fact, one used all across the nation - somehow the Fifth District arrived at a different conclusion on the contract than any other court in the country.

As "officials" in Madison County continue to dismiss any validity to the notion their courts are different from any others, let us remember what the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has to say: "As far as we can tell, the Fifth District stands alone among the 50 state judicial systems." Unfortunately, this statement is far from a compliment. In other words, "we're still #1 at being dead last."

Who's Worth More?

2005-06-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's Edwardsville Intelligencer article about juror salaries has sparked an interesting topic...

Who's worth more, judges or juries?

I'm sure there's some great philosophical debate, but let's leave that for another day. In Illinois, judges must be worth more, and the attitude of Madison County's Chief Circuit Judge indicates it.

According to the Intelligencer:

A proposal to triple jury pay, from $10 to $30 per day, has died in the state Senate. To cover the increased expense, House Bill 339 would have allowed counties to increase the fees -- by $10 for each plaintiff and defendant -- that attorneys must pay when they seek a jury trial.

The jury fee is currently $212.50.

Chief Judge Edwards Ferguson was not particularly sad to see the bill fail.

"The magic bullet, of course, was 'We'll have the ones who use the courts pay for it,' but that's getting so onerous," he said Friday at a meeting of the Madison County Judiciary Committee.

Interesting comment on user fees, coming from a Judge that now sits in a new Criminal Courts Building that was paid for by a case that has nothing to do with Madison County's Criminal Court.

For the record, the ICJL supported the bi-partisan-sponsored Senate Bill 1481, which included the increased juror pay with a host of other jury reform initiatives. That bill didn't emerge from Senate Judiciary Committee. The ICJL did not take a position on House Bill 339.

Back to the story:

Last year the county paid jurors about $80,000, not including about $50,000 for mileage and $1,700 for meals.

So Madison County spent about $131, 700 for all of its juries. Meanwhile, Judge Ferguson, one of eight judges that calls Madison County home, makes $136,546 a year. Eleven other Associate Judges draw $127,247 a year.

Let's compare yearly costs:
Madison County Juries: $131,700
Madison County Judges: $2,492,085

Judge Ferguson makes about $525 each workday. A 12-person jury altogether gets paid $120 plus mileage. Is it that unfair to pay the jury in a manner that is more equitable to what the judge is making?

And, how can the increased filing fees really overburden Madison County lawyers, some of whom have earned $13,100 a hour in class action litigation?

Visible Evidence - Invisible Proof

2005-05-23T05:30:00.000-07:00

In Illinois, trial lawyers look at clear evidence of the impact of lawsuit abuse against Illinois doctors and tell legislators they see nothing wrong with the legal system. What's visible evidence to everyone else must be invisible to the trial lawyers?

While trial lawyers seem to be great at making clear evidence invisible, they're now getting help at making invisible evidence visible! In the new June issue of the ATLA Trial magazine, trial lawyers will get instruction on "Proving Invisible Injuries":

It's said that seeing is believing, so what do you do when the jury can't see your client's injuries? The June issue of TRIAL tells you how to make invisible injuries visible.

It's this type of logic that explains why Illinois is heading into another "final week" of a legislative session for a third year in a row without having passed meaningful medical liability reform. If "seeing is believing" for trial lawyers, perhaps they should view Glenn McCoy's recent political cartoon for starters.

While trial lawyers learn more in June on how to better express to juries how to "prove" the need for an increase in non-economic damage awards, will there be many doctors left in Illinois for them to practice their newly-learned skills?

We should know in the next week...

It Must Be Bad Lawyers...

2005-05-10T12:00:00.000-07:00

To update our post from yesterday... it must be bad lawyers contributing to the medical malpractice crisis.

Case in point: The Illinois State Bar Association released a study they commissioned on the subject of medical malpractice that reports on the jury verdicts for cases in Cook, DuPage, Madison and St. Clair counties from the early-90s to 2004. The study mentions the worn-out argument that there have only been four verdicts against doctors in the past eight years in Madison County (see the post below for more on this stat), and utilizies the same methodology for extinguishing the "crisis" in Cook, DuPage and St. Clair counties.

As Oly Bly Pace III writes:

The resulting study, titled “Medical Malpractice and the Tort System in Illinois,” set out to provide factual answers to several critical questions facing the General Assembly as it decides what, if any, changes to make in the laws governing medical malpractice.

It's the Settlements, Stupid!

For the largest statewide association of lawyers (30,000 members strong) to assert that there is no link between medical malpractice litigation and the rise in liability rates, without studying the settlement history in cases brought before the court, brings into question the integrity of ISBA's motives in helping to resolve the issue before the state legislature.

Is the ISBA unaware that much litigation in Illinois is resolved through settlements? Or is Duke Professor (Dr.) Neil Vidmar unaware of the concept of settlements in litigation?

It's the equivalent of saying that there is no real action in the asbestos litigation industry in Madison County. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch estimates that trial lawyers reap nearly $1 billion a year in asbestos winnings from Madison County, but the first case to go to trial in two years just started yesterday morning. I don't think there has been a verdict in a case since Randy Bono's $250 million verdict in 2003. Is it any wonder why there hasn't been a case come to trial since?

Is it any surprise that Professor Vidmar failed to draw the proper methodology for the study? As Ted Frank points out in his comments posted to a recent Evan Schaefer blog article:

Vidmar's been writing about this subject for years, most notoriously as a paid expert challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's caps. If he makes the same errors in the Illinois paper that he made in his Indiana paper [...] the lawyers will be happy with his results, which is why they're confident in hiring him. Vidmar may or may not be biased [...] but the selection of Vidmar to do the study was certainly a biased one.

So, the implication is this guy isn't quite as biased as Jay Angoff, but...

Therefore, to state - as their study's title does - that their report offers facts relating to medical malpractice and the TORT SYSTEM, without considering settlements, renders their study and data useless.

Which is a shame, because it's nice to see the state bar association finally get interested in how their membership is affecting other professions in Illinois.

Ted Frank (PointofLaw.com) and Evan Schaefer (Notes from the Legal Underground) had a memorable exchange about settlements in this May 2004 post, in which Evan argued that med mal wasn't just a Madison County problem and Ted argued that settlements were being ignored in the trial lawyer statistics.

Ted: "Evan, you and I both know that the bulk of medical malpractice claims get resolved in settlements based on both attorneys' perceptions of what a judge will permit a jury will deliver. So why do you persist in this transparently bogus use of a "verdict" statistic..."

Evan: "I also said there is inadequate information about the cases filed in Madison County. Your numbers don't help. We can speculate on sound footing that some of the cases filed against doctors in Madison County were settled, but the vast majority were undoubtedly dismissed without the doctors' paying anything, since that is the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits..."

However a month later, the ICJL answered Ted and Evan's speculation about Madison County suits with a ground-breaking study of medical malpractice litigation, titled "The Dirty Little Secret: Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Against Metro-East Doctors". The results were staggering and left ICJL asking...

What about the High Volume of Litigation?

For those with short memories, the ICJL study found that nearly one-third of all doctors in the metro-east had been personally named in a lawsuit between 2000-2003. ICJL data estimated that half of the Metro-East doctors were affected, either by being named personally or having one of the partners or their practice named in a lawsuit.

The ICJL study looked at 422 lawsuits filed in Madison and St. Clair counties in four years, naming 1,082 total defendants. The metro-east had approximately 950 registered physicians at that time.

And, the study showed that the crisis had nothing to do with repeat offenders. 242 physicians or roughly one-fourth of all Metro-East physicians were named only once over the four-year period.

Nearly one year later, the most interesting conclusion is the rate of failure by Metro-East trial lawyers. After harassing physicians with 422 lawsuits, only five of them went to trial with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. That's a success rate of just over 1%.

So, to respond to Evan's recent medical malpractice question, I'd like to know: "When medical malpractice cases get dismissed, where do they go?"

The answer is more complicated than the ISBA and Professor Vidmar wish to examine in their study. Some cases get dismissed (and the doctors and their insurance companies get left with the bill). Some cases get settled (and the doctors and their insurance companies get left with the bill). That "bill" could be as little as $25,000 (I think the latest average defense cost per doctor, regardless of the outcome) or perhaps into the millions (in the case of settlements).

If ISMIE statistics show that 85 percent of St. Clair County cases and 72 percent of Madison County cases get thrown out without a payment to the plaintiff, then the ISBA study is neglecting (the most costly) 14 percent of cases in St. Clair County and 27 percent of cases in Madison County.

You can believe there's not a problem with medical malpractice litigation in the Metro-East, if you want to. 422 cases filed and only 5 "wins" for the trial lawyers in court.

You can choose to ignore the outcomes of the other 417 cases. You know, the endless depositions that take doctors away from their patients, the escalating costs of defense lawyers to get non-meritorious suits thrown out, the heartache and headaches for doctors who apparently "win" their cases 99 percent of the time.

Would you have a problem going to a doctor that was unsuccessful 99 percent of the time? Even after 422 tries? So, how can you say that we don't have a problem with medical malpractice litigation in the Metro-East?

Bad Doctors OR Bad Lawyers?

2005-05-08T21:00:00.000-07:00

I was inspired by T. Evan Schaefer's recent post, "When Doctors Leave Town, Where Do They Go?" In his post, Evan recounts a statistic spun by the Madison County trial lawyers that only 11 lawsuits have gone to a jury since 1996, and only four of those were found for the plaintiff.

According to the Edwardsville Intelligencer article within which this statistic was reported, the four lawsuits resulted in verdicts of $25,000, $75,000, $450,000, and $1.7 million, meaning combined damages (economic and non-economic) were below the recent Shadid-standard for caps in three of four cases.

Apparently this is a meaningful statistic in the medical liability reform debate. (Note my sarcasm).

It seems to be forwarded again and again by trial lawyers in this area. They say insurance companies must charge the doctors too much, especially if Madison County juries have awared less than $2.5 million in the past eight years. If only the issue was that easy to explain.

Just for fun, let's put the statistic in real context within the debate. FACT: There have only been four winning plaintiffs in Madison County in eight years. ICJL did a study looking at the number of medical defendants in Madison County from 2000-2003, so let's assume that ALL four of the winning plaintiffs were successful in that time period (trying to be fair to the trial lawyers with my assumptions).

So, out of 181 medical malpractice suits filed in Madison County from 2000-2003, the plaintiff and his/her trial lawyer(s) were successful - at most - 2.2 percent of the time. Which, by the standards put forth by the trial lawyers, 97.8 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in Madison County result in no verdict for the plaintiff, meaning the trial lawyer lost the case.

Conclusion: Trial lawyers fail in 97.8 percent of the claims they file against doctors in Madison County. Doesn't sound like we have very good legal skill here in this county...? And, the trial lawyers say they already turn down 90 percent of the potential cases they could take, because of lack of merit...?

If the doctors failed 97.8 percent of the time for their patients, then we really would have a problem with our healthcare. But unfortunately, it's lawyers missing with so many cases.

In the process, more than 460 defendants were named in the 181 lawsuits. No wonder so many doctors are rallying to change the way medical liability is assessed in Illinois. Needless defense costs were paid, needless time away from patients was spent, needless anxiety over meritlous claims was expended, needless headaches and heartaches for families (on both sides) was extolled. Meanwhile, the adequate resources collected from doctors to compensate victims when negligence actually occurred was wasted defending against claims headed for dismissal.

It's starting to sound like there's been a lot of pain and suffering extracted against our doctors, considering the high rate of failure by plaintiffs lawyers in medical malpractice cases in Madison County. Perhaps someone should call a lawyer.

Lawsuits & Bikes Don't Mix

2005-05-05T09:00:00.000-07:00

Isn't it interesting how issues in Springfield tend to get more complicated whenever the trial lawyer lobby gets involved?

Illinois bikers got to see the above theory in action this week as House Bill 2390 (aka "The Bike Bill") got shot down by the Senate Local Government Committee. In essence, the bill just grants bicyclists the equal opportunity to use our roadways. However, thanks to the mingling of lawyers, bikers will have to detour into the more complicated world that doctors and small businesses now occupy in Illinois.

Shaking your head in confusion at this point? You might be if you're not currently a litigation target in Illinois, but let me explain the concept further so everyone can understand what's at stake for you, the taxpayer.

In September 1993, a case involving a bike injury in Wayne Township was brought before a judge in DuPage County.

According to the Supreme Court Boub v. Township of Wayne description:

After the dismissal of the plaintiff's initial and amended complaints, the plaintiff eventually filed a third amended complaint, which superseded a pending second amended complaint. According to the allegations in the plaintiff's third amended complaint, Boub was riding his bicycle on the morning of September 8, 1992, on St. Charles Road in Wayne Township, DuPage County. The accident occurred as Boub was traveling across a one-lane bridge. The surface of the bridge consisted of wood planking; some time before the accident, asphalt patching between the planks had been removed as part of a bridge renovation project, in preparation for the installation of a different bridge deck. According to the pleadings, the plaintiff was thrown from the bicycle when his front tire became stuck between two of the planks on the bridge.

The resulting court case, as noted above, went all the way to the Supreme Court and was decided by a very close 4-3 vote. The potential liabilities were discussed by Justice Ben Miller in the decision.

Indeed, the potential implications of such a shift in policy are substantial and far-reaching, and we do not believe that the legislature intended to impose liability in these circumstances. Simply put, many road conditions that do not pose hazards to vehicles may represent special dangers to bicycles, and imposition of liability in this case would, we believe, open the door to liability for a broad range of pavement conditions, such as potholes, speed bumps, expansion joints, sewer grates, and rocks and gravel, to name but a few. By the same token, we believe that imposition of municipal liability in the circumstances shown here is more appropriate for the legislature to initiate, if it is to be done at all. In this regard, it is appropriate to consider the potentially enormous costs both of imposing liability for road defects that might injure bicycle riders and of upgrading road conditions to meet the special requirements of bicyclists.

Without putting too many words in the mouth of the court, what the majority was saying is that there is a need to consider the cost to municipalities - meaning THE TAXPAYERS - when connecting liability to these types of accidents.

The court went further, in fact, to clarify what they thought the "rights" of bicyclists were on open roadways:

In sum, there are no affirmative manifestations here that Wayne Township intended-rather than simply permitted-bicyclists to use the road and bridge where the accident occurred. We have no quarrel with the proposition that bicycle riders are permitted users of the road and bridge involved in this case; we do not believe, however, that they must also be considered intended users of those facilities, within the scope of section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act. There is no question of fact on this record, and summary judgment was appropriately entered in favor of the defendants.

Three justices felt very differently in the case, with Justice Heiple penning:

The majority's conclusion that bicyclists are not intended users of roads defies common sense, contravenes statutory authority, and frustrates public policy.

[...]

Besides depriving injured bicyclists of just compensation for their injuries, the principal effect of the majority decision will be to discourage municipalities from taking any measures to make roads safer and more hospitable for bicyclists. Because the majority precludes liability whenever the municipality in question does not intend for bicyclists to use its roads, a loss-averse municipality, in order to minimize its exposure to liability, might remove from its roads any evidence that bicyclists are intended users, such as bike lanes or special signs. Bicyclists would then be in even more jeopardy than that occasioned by today's decision. Given the majority's ruling, the only safe bicycle in Illinois is a stationary exercise bike located in one's home or at the gym.

This court decision was entered into the record five years later in 1998. Now, let's fast forward to 2005...

Biker groups in Illinois are now lobbying to help reverse some of the damage they feel they incurred in the Boub decision. Justice Heiple was right in his assessment of the negative implications of the ruling. According to the most vocal biking group, League of Illinois Bicyclists, many government entitities have backed off some initiatives to improve biking trails and designations. BikeLIB.com (sorry, I can't refuse a small chuckle over the name) - the website of the League of Illinois Bicyclists - even reports that Illinois is now one of the worst states in the country for biking.

However, this story from their website is more telling:

Our goal is not to impose the extra costs of new maintenance standards, road requirements, or special liability protection. We simply want to return to where we were before 1998 (and where other states are): no more than the existing level of protection given to other road users - and the elimination of the liability disincentive that dissuades safety-conscious towns. This is not new and uncharted territory. History in pre-Boub Illinois and in other states has shown the liability exposure to be negligible.

The amended language is the product of very active negotiations between bicycle organizations, local government groups, and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. It is our closest compromise language to date. All parties have given something up to get here. No one is entirely happy with the result but all parties seem willing to move a little to finally resolve this issue. We believe the removal of the disincentive to bikeway designation is achieved within a reasonable local government burden for cyclist's safety.

Doesn't this sound a little like the plight of our doctors here in Illinois, before litigation ruined the practice of medicine in this state. Replace the bikers with doctors and replace the local municipalities with insurance companies, and - essentially - you have a parallel argument. Except, in this case, there are no "evil insurance companies" for the trial lawyers to demonize because the money for biking accidents is targeted in your pocketbook - the municipal taxpayer.

In fact, the groups fighting to defeat HB 2390 are being led by the Illinois Municipal League, and others are acknowledged on the IML website:

The League would like to thank the City of Chicago, Will County Governmental League, South Suburban Mayors and Managers, West Central Municipal Conference, Metro Counties of Illinois and the Township Officials of Illinois for their hard work in opposition. A special thanks also goes out to the numerous local officials throughout the state who contacted their legislators and urged them to oppose the bill.

And shouldn't our elected officials being doing all they can to prevent local taxpayers from having to foot the bill for potential lawsuits? Not according to the Rockford Register-Star, whose editors are blasting the seven Senators who voted against the bill as thinking "bicyclists are second-class citizen." The Register-Star thinks the bill's demise is a poor start for the month of May, which is National Bike Month.

The seven senators who opposed the bill must be oblivious to the thousands of people who use bicycles for transportation. Many do it as a lifestyle choice. They like the exercise, the gas savings and the hassle-free parking.

Here's a suggestion for all lawmakers who opposed this bill. Get off your bloated behinds and ride your bikes to work. Bike to Work Week is May 16-20. May 20 is Bike to Work Day. Maybe after you see how dangerous it can be to ride streets that are not marked for bicycles, you'll understand the importance of the legislation you just killed.

Alas, the editors at the Rockford Register-Star must be oblivious to the thousands of trial lawyers in America looking to target municipalities (aka the taxpayers) for their next lawsuits. To parallel further the editors' arguments, perhaps they should see how dangerous it can be for the taxpayer to navigate through the court system when a municipality gets dragged into a case. Perhaps their reporters should get off their behinds and look at the Winnebago docket and see where lawsuit abuse is affecting the local taxpayer in Rockford? Even though there are no warning signs posted for city administrators, they know the potential liabilities and have to weigh them against the postive uses for residents - even bicyclists.

Isn't that what we - as taxpayers - hire them to do?

Unfortunately, the fear of litigation is forcing changes in our state's biking opportunities. However, it was the plaintiff that pushed the case to the Supreme Court in 1998 that forced a change in the law that created the "disincentive" for bicyclists. Most municipalities probably never considered the potential liability until lawyers tinkered with Supreme Court on the case.

Once again, a group loses out because the trial lawyers won't give up a potential cash cow in order for Illinoisans to more freely exercise (no pun intended) their rights to bike. For those keeping track, if you're a patient AND a biker in Illinois, you're now losing 2-0.

Exposing the 'Hidden Agenda' in Illinois

2005-04-26T20:00:00.000-07:00

Ryan Sager of the NY Post analyzed our ICJL study of George Soros, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, and the Illinois race for Supreme Court.

His assessment, which was published in a column in yesterday's NY Post:

And so one group appointed itself traffic cop: the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, the state's resident good-government watchdog. The "nonpartisan" group spearheaded a Tone and Conduct Committee — organized under the aegis of the state Bar Association — aimed at keeping advertising by outside interests to a minimum. The media bought this charade hook, line and sinker, referring to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform as "nonpartisan" and the Tone and Conduct Committee as "independent."

But, as Sager brilliantly exposed and first reported in his earlier column titled "Buying Reform," these 'independent' groups are nothing more than front groups funded by special interest foundations controlled by George Soros, among others.

But the cleanies have grander plans in mind. Specifically, they're lobbying for the state Legislature to ban all corporate and union contributions in all elections in Illinois and set up public financing of judicial elections.

"I think they would like to cut anybody out of the debate who disagrees with their agenda," says Edward Murnane, the president of the Illinois Civil Justice League.

To bolster his case, he points to the liberal foundation funding behind the Illinois Campaign Reform Coalition, an umbrella group in the state lobbying for sweeping restrictions on political speech. That funding is detailed in another report just released by his group.

It turns out that the eight groups under the umbrella (ICPR, the Sunshine Project, the Citizen Advocacy Center, Protestants for the Common Good, the Better Government Association, Common Cause Illinois, Illinois Public Interest Research Group and the League of Women Voters of Illinois) have received about $3 million in grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Joyce Foundation since 1997.

Those names should sound familiar to anyone who has followed the unmasking of the campaign-finance lobby at the national level. They are two of the eight liberal foundations that spent more than $120 million between 1994 and 2004 to fake up a "grass-roots movement" to pass the McCain-Feingold law, defend it in court and lobby for further restrictions on political speech.

To borrow from another recent Sager column headline, what the "cleanies" want is "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee." In essence, they are proposing to change the rules to limit political speech for only select groups.

These state groups are part of the same effort to restrict all political speech deemed unworthy of a hearing by a cadre of liberal foundations.

These groups exist in nearly every state. And just as at the federal level, they get almost no scrutiny from the press. "The news media in Illinois have not really done the kind of reporting that shows who's playing this game," says Murnane.

"They accuse us of being a front for big business . . . we don't hide from that," he says, referring to his group's business backing. "They're hiding, pretending they're somebody that they're not." As in neutral, nonpartisan.

If politics is war by other means, then campaign-finance reform is politics by other means. The funders of campaign-finance reform have a political agenda — as shown by the other groups they support: These foundations also fund the Earth Action Network, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, the Public Citizen Foundation . . . and they oppose tort reform.

And, if the "cleanies" get their way in Springfield this year, only one side of the debate will get an opportunity to take the field. Last I looked, independent "referees" were not in the business of keeping one team off the field.

Once again, it's the bloggers keeping free speech alive:

Once again, we see the convicted swindler, George Soros, funding groups that are deceiving all of us by claiming to be nonpartisan and only "concerned" about cleaning up campaign financing. What they are really doing, is trying to shut up their opposition, by what ever means possible.

IlliniPundit puts it best:

There’s never anything “non-partisan” about changing the rules of politics. Such changes are always designed to benefit someone – incumbents, the media, or, in this case, liberal special interest groups.

It’s clear that the Illinois campaign finance “reform” groups are being funding by national Democratic interests, including George Soros, who has spent untold millions trying to defeat Republicans across the country.

Let’s make sure that in Illinois, voices other than Mr. Soros’ can still be heard.

I wholeheartedly endorse IlliniPundit's opinion on the issue, at least while the campaign finance rules in Illinois still allow me to comment.

Rewriting the Constitution

2005-04-21T01:00:00.000-07:00

Apparently activist judges aren't doing enough to please their supporters. Now, George Soros (you know, the billionnaire campaign financier that's partnered with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform) is funding a new effort to literally CHANGE our U.S. Constitution.

The effort from Soros to change the laws and Constitution to his view of what America should be is being funded through $500,000 worth of grants to the American Constitution Society for Law & Policy (see here & here), a $270,000 grant (here) for support of the Constitution in the 21st Century project, a $156,500 grant (here) to support a "teach-in" on judicial appointments, as well as a $50,000 grant (here) for The Constitution in 2020 project at Yale University. I guess the moral of the story is that Soros has about $1 million in grant money for just about anybody willing to work for a more activist court system.

I originally ran across the American Constitution Society for Law & Policy when I found a few interesting blog entries on the ACS Blog. According to their Blog, the ACS is "one of the nation’s leading progressive legal organizations" with "over 100 law school and lawyer chapters all across the country."

Under their "Organization" entry, you can find this mission statement:

Promote a progressive vision of the Constitution, the law and public policy through speaking programs, an annual convention, a speakers bureau of leading scholars and practitioners, media outreach, and publications designed to turn the tide of legal debate both locally and nationally.

Turning the "tide" on the legal debate...? Seems like this is just another Soros-funded effort to push a progressive agenda for the courts for lawsuits, lawsuits, and more lawsuits. If you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, just check out the organization's list of issues, which lists "access to the courts" and "consumer rights" as two of their top agendas.

You can check out the Constitution in 2020 Conference website for yourself. One seminar was to include Charles Sabel, a Columbia Law School professor who teaches a law class on New Forms of Public Interest Advocacy, which explores "new strategies for reforming public institutions through law." His (not so) inviting website carries the tag, "This website, and everything on it, is copyrighted. We are lawyers. We sue." Really...

The ACS has student chapters at the UIUC, UChicago, and Kent law schools, as well as a lawyer chapter in Chicago. The UChicago chapter seems to be the only super-functioning chapter in this state and their events have included speakers such as federal Judge Milton Shadur of IL's Northern District. (Be sure to check out their photo gallery for the Janet Reno dance.) On the ACS Board of Directors you'll find former ATLA President Fred Baron of Baron & Budd (the SimmonsCooper partner in Madison County asbestos litigation). Isn't it scary to think that Soros is funding organizations that are starting student law school groups to promote the trial lawyer view of activist courts?

If Soros is willing to pay organizations such as the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform to support their effort to silence anyone who criticizes the courts, certainly there's more Soros funding to help reform our Constitution, as well. Perhaps they'll change the First Amendment to read: "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee" (borrowing a quote from NY Post editor Ryan Sager).

Remember, the trial lawyers and their support groups are more than free to criticize the President and Congress for their efforts to reign in lawsuits, but hell-hath-no-fury like a progressive group condemning a tort reform organization for questioning the contributions/relationships/influence between judicial candidates and the trial lawyers.

George Soros Funds ICPR?

2005-04-13T05:00:00.000-07:00

Ryan Sager, an editor at the NY Post is calling it "Buying Reform." At ICJL, we're "Watching the Watchdogs," the same watchdogs that continue to push one-sided reforms to our state's judicial elections. All I know is that the mounting evidence is bringing even more scrutiny to organizations detailed in a February 2005 ICJL Study. Especially now that its clear that one of Illinois Campaign for Political Reform's donors is George Soros' foundation - yes, the same George Soros who is credited with being the largest soft money election contributor in US history.

According to Sager:

Campaign-finance reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."

But don't take my word for it. One of the chief scammers, Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, confesses it all in an astonishing videotape I obtained earlier this week.

The tape — of a conference held at USC's Annenberg School for Communication in March of 2004 — shows Treglia expounding to a gathering of academics, experts and journalists (none of whom, apparently, ever wrote about Treglia's remarks) on just how Pew and other left-wing foundations plotted to create a fake grassroots movement to hoodwink Congress.

"I'm going to tell you a story that I've never told any reporter," Treglia says on the tape. "Now that I'm several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell this story."

Sager outlines the story, and if you doubt him or I, just watch the actual video located here, here, and here (entire conference available from USC's website here or from Sager's blog here).

Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when he joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of "experts" all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

Treglia's revelations help put in context a report just out from a group called Political Money Line, "Campaign Finance Lobby: 1994-2004," which follows the money behind campaign-finance reform.

That cash, it turns out, was the one thing about the "movement" that was masssive: From 1994 to 2004, almost $140 million was spent to lobby for changes to our country's campaign-finance laws.

But this money didn't come from little old ladies making do with cat food so they could send a $20 check to Common Cause. The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from just eight liberal foundations.

These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros' Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).

I couldn't find an online copy of the study by Political Money Line (although Sager has setup an opportunity to get "guest" privileges on their site), but I did find the 2001 George Will column referring to the study, "Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform." My favorite line from George Will: "...reformer, Jerome Kohlberg, donated $100,000 to a group that ran ads saying 'Let's get the $100,000 checks out of politics.'" Not that Illinois has seen any $100,000 checks in Supreme Court politics lately.

Speaking of Illinois... While Sager focused his study on the broader national organizations, ICJL looked into foundation funding from the same eight organizations to campaign finance reform efforts in Illinois.

According to the websites of two of the eight foundations, more than $2.5 million has been donated to campaign finance reform efforts in Illinois since 1997. The Joyce Foundation and the George Soros "Open Society Institute" have fueled a majority of the efforts, including three direct grants to ICPR from 2003-2004 and five grants to the League of Women Voters of Illinois Education Fund from 1997-2004.

Another $360,000 in Joyce Foundation grants were given to SIUC and UIS for pre-ICPR promotional efforts and support for the Sunshine database.

The Justice at Stake campaign for Illinois has received $210,000 in five grants from the Joyce and Soros foundations to the Public Action Foundation, Protestants for the Common Good, and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

The Joyce, Soros, Ford and Carnegie foundations have given another $2 million to Georgetown University for creation of the nationwide Justice at Stake campaign, $3.25 million to the Brennan Center for Justice (Brennan was the US Supreme Court justice known for judicial activism), and $550,000 to the USAction Education Fund. The Brennan Center serves as counsel for ICPR and the Sunshine Project. USAction is the anti-legal-reform group that ran ads countering President Bush's Madison County visit and serves as the national coalition for Citizen Action groups.

The Soros and Joyce foundations have given over a half million dollars to the Chicago-based American Bar Association Education Fund for Justice and Education for their "Standing Committee on Judicial Independence" and for the creation of "standards for and models of public financing for state judicial elections."

As Sager details, some of the Foundations didn't want any publicity for the efforts:

"We had a scare," Treglia says. "As the debate was progressing and getting pretty close, George Will stumbled across a report that we had done and attacked it in his column. And a lot of his partisans were becoming aware of Pew's role and were feeding him information. And he started to reference the fact that Pew had played a large role in this — that this was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress."

"But you know what the good news is from my perspective?" Treglia says to the stunned crowd. "Journalists didn't care…So no one followed up on the story. And so there was a panic there for a couple of weeks because we thought the story was going to begin to gather steam, and no one picked it up."

Treglia's right. While he admits Pew specifically instructed groups receiving its grants "never to mention Pew," all these connections were disclosed (as legally required) in various tax forms and annual reports. "If any reporter wanted to know, they could have sat down and connected the dots," he said. "But they didn't."

Maybe the press was afraid that Capitol Fax would poke fun at the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and call it a Conspiracy Theory. Maybe they didn't want to feel the spite of people from the reform groups.

I just can't get over the irony that George Soros - the man that spent $23 million contributing to 527 groups like MoveOn.org and The Media Fund and in 2004 made the largest soft money contribution in history - helps bankroll Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, the group founded to "reform" the way money influences elections.

I just can't help but wonder why these foundations grant hundreds of thousands of dollars to the League of Women Voters of Illinois Education Fund specifically for "support of Illinois Campaign for Political Reform"? Why not just give the money directly to ICPR? I would hate to think that ICPR didn't know the money was being "funneled" through another source?

I enjoyed columnist James Norrell's view of the situation:

If there were an illustration accompanying the word "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, it would be an engraving of globalist billionaire George Soros.

Soros, one of the richest men in the world, backed campaign finance reform with huge cash donations to a wide variety of Washington "reform" special interest groups to accomplish what his funding conduit called an effort "to reduce the corrupting influence of very large donors" and to ban pre-election "issue advocacy" ads [....]

Now, arch-reformer Soros is pouring perhaps as much as $30-million of his own money into left-wing "progressive" organizations he believes are uniquely inoculated against the restrictions of the very law Soros bought and paid for [.]

Since the release of the February 2004 ICJL report, the ICPR has joined forces with the Brennan Center for Justice - an organization that has received $1 million in Soros funding in the past two years and whose namesake is considered the most activist jurist in modern history. In Illinois, they have retaliated by attacking the Coalition for Jobs, Growth & Prosperity, a Karmeier contributor. Funny, ICPR and the Brennan Center failed to file any complaints against the Citizen Action PAC for similar activities in their support of Maag.

Is there no doubt now, with George Soros funding ICPR's judicial reform activities and Michael Moore fueling the Center for Justice & Democracy and their work to counter any legal reforms, that the goofy campaign to ensure activist courts (like the ones in Madison County) has included "monitoring committees," movie crews, and - most of all - strategic litigation to silence critics.

Now, Soros-sponsored groups are targeting MILLIONS of YOUR TAX MONEY to pay for public financing of judicial elections and state-sponsored voter guides to be mailed to homes across Illinois. Under impartial auspices, these ideas might have merit. However, now that the League of Women Voters is even documented as taking money from these foundations, to whom could we ever turn over the administration of a TRULY non-biased voter guide?

Perhaps we should just hand it over to McCain & Feingold?

Blockbuster Idea!

2005-04-04T05:00:00.000-07:00

The trial lawyers are quick to defend most class action cases by stating that they are just working to correct the evil actions of large corporations against the "little guy." There's no mention of the "little guy" when the lawyers fees outweigh the actual take by the plaintiffs class, however that's the general defense of our class action litigation system.

It's interesting that no trial lawyers were needed to resolve a claim of false advertising by Blockbuster this week. The Bi-State litigating team of Attorneys General from Illinois (Madigan) and Missouri (Nixon) took on Blockbuster, claiming their slogan of "No Late Fees" was inaccurate.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

In January, Blockbuster began its "no late fees" ad campaign. But customers who kept videos or DVDs for a week were angered to learn they now had a choice: Purchase the items or pay a "restocking" fee of $1.25 or more.

As part of the settlement, Blockbuster will remove current "No late fees" store signs, and more clearly display the restocking fees policy. A one-time refund will also be given to customers who felt misled. The refund period will cover items rented between January 1st and March 28th, and requests must be made by April 28. Blockbuster will also pay $630,000 to settle deceptive advertising claims.

I'm not sure how this case missed Madison County (and who knows if it could be resurrected). Unbelievably, a claim of corporate wrongdoing was resolved without using the "Madison County Method". Instead, the claim was resolved quickly, the harm committed will be repaid efficiently, and the public's trust in the matter was represented through the more transparent process of the Attorneys General office.

And imagine this...no arguing for months or years over the amount of attorney's fees. Blockbuster Idea!

Another Cup of Joe

2005-03-31T16:00:00.000-08:00

The McDonald's Coffee case is already an infamous piece of American history. In 1992, a New Mexico retiree spilled a cup of McDonalds coffee in her lap and ended up being awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages (later reduced to $480,000).

This case might have been on the minds of a Southern Illinois University student and her lawyer when they filed suit against Starbucks, on the campus of SIU-Edwardsville, in Madison County court.

The student, Molly Alter of Edwardsville, claim that the coffee she was served at Starbucks was in a defective cup and burned her hands. However, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Circuit Judge George Moran dismissed the coffee lawsuit, granting the same protections and immunity to Starbucks that the University receives as a state entity.

According to the Post-Dispatch:

Alter, a student in the university's graduate program in metalsmithing, alleged that her hands were burned on Dec. 3, 2003, when the cup crumbled. She contended that she was unable to complete her class work for the semester.

Her attorney, Matthew Marlen, said his client had made a "pretty good recovery" and was back in school.

The Court of Claims is the proper venue for the case," Moran wrote in his court order, referring to the forum set up by the state of Illinois to resolve all claims against state entities.

"We're disappointed because my argument had been that we were not suing the state," Marlen said. "We were not suing SIUE. We were suing Starbucks and there was no indication the university operated or had anything to do with Starbucks other than it granted them a right to operate on the campus."

Since 1992, this case has been hotly debated (no pun intended) amongst proponents and opponents of legal reform (check out a fine debate presented on PointofLaw.com). A similar cases is even being litigated in Russia of all places, however the plaintiff is only claiming $3,514 in damages ($14 in healthcare costs and $3,500 of "moral damage").

However, if you thought this was the first time a Southern Illinois attorney had thought to sue over a cup of coffee - you'd be wrong. In January 2001, the Murphysboro (IL) McDonald's owner, Short Enterprises, was named in a lawsuit with Wal-Mart, a cup manufacturer, and the plaintiff's own mother, in a case brought by attorney Eric Long.

According to the Washington Post:

Teresa Reed claims in the lawsuit against Short Enterprises, owner of the Murphysboro McDonald's, that a cup of coffee she bought at the drive-through window in 1998 spilled and scalded her ankle, allegedly leaving a permanent scar.

Reed said the coffee, which the suit alleged was "served at a temperature too hot for consumption and hot enough to scald the human body," spilled and burned her after she placed it in a cup holder in her mother's car.

The suit also accuses Reed's mother of negligence, saying Carol Sanders "owed a duty of care for the safety of others riding in her vehicle."

Plaintiffs Power: Politics, Politicians & Documentaries

2005-03-25T04:00:00.000-08:00

This week, Law.com released its "Plaintiffs Power", a look at the Top 16 national personal injury firms in terms of financial revenue. There are several very interesting and timely articles that I'd highly recommend...

I thought it would be interesting to see how many of these 16 firms "dabbled" in the recent Illinois Supreme Court election.

- Baron & Budd, a Dallas asbestos firm with an office in Glen Carbon, tops the list with annual revenues estimated at more than $75 million. Baron & Budd contributed to $25,000 to Justice For All PAC and $25,000 to DPI this past fall.

- Milberg Weiss, a national firm built on securities class action cases, contributed $10,000 to DPI in October 2004.

- Lieff Cabraser contributed to DPI in 2000 and 2002, but stayed out of IL this year.

- Ness Motley (or whatever they separated into now) hasn't had interest in IL, but Richardson Patrick (recent partners who broke away in 2002) contributed $75,000 to DPI in 2004. This story about the breakup of Ness Motley is a must-read.

- Philip Corboy of Corboy & Demetrio is one of the famous $100,000 contributors to DPI.

I guess 4 out of 16 firms at $235,000 is a little interest...

If you missed "A Well-Oiled Machine," the story about Weitz & Luxenburg, make sure you read the box at the bottom titled, "Perry Weitz’s Recipe for a Delicious Mass Tort." If you're like me, I'm sure you can't resist a delicious mass tort on any restaurant's dessert menu! I was so excited to learn the recipe...

1. Be ahead of the curve. Read medical journals and FDA reports, stay in touch with physicians, listen to prospective clients and referring lawyers. "We like to be on the cutting edge of knowing about adverse reactions," says Weitz. "Once we begin to see an incidence of disease and death, we research it. Hopefully we’ll hear about it before The New York Times." And before the Association of Trial Lawyers of America establishes a working group.

2. Do your prep work. Weitz says he’s looking for two things when he evaluates a potential mass tort. First is science: "Is there causation? Will I be able to survive a Daubert motion?" Next is damages: "Are there serious injuries or death? Is there punitive conduct?" he says. "I look at the punitive conduct of a company, particularly if the damages are not serious. Punitive conduct gives us the ability to try lesser damage cases." Before filing a suit, Weitz says, the firm will get hold of liability documents, consult with potential expert witnesses, and conduct mock trials. "We spend an extraordinary amount on due diligence," he says, "to make sure we’re making the right choices."

3. Spread the word. Weitz & Luxenberg advertises for clients, and informs its referral network of dozens of firms in all areas of the country that it’s looking for new mass tort cases. "A lot of times the cases end up being filed here," says Weitz. "New York is better than being in Arkansas, Tennessee, or wherever."

4. File individual cases, not class actions. Weitz & Luxenberg only resorts to settlement classes in dire circumstances, such as the threatened bankruptcy of Sulzer in the hip replacement litigation.

5. Work up cases for trial. If defendants still aren’t scared into settling, let Robert Gordon or another of the firm’s trial specialists try a case or two. Spare no resources–manpower, experts, technological support–at trial.

6. Settle everything else. Let Weitz handle the economics and negotiations.

Imagine my surprise when "flour" wasn't even an ingredient...? And, I thought lawsuits were just about victims getting their day in court...

You have to wonder how Madison County litigation fits into this theme: (1) research and find the lawsuit, (2) advertise until you find a client, (3) scare the defendants until they're ready to settle.

I guess the "homemade" Madison County version of this recipe doesn't include #4: "File individual cases, not class actions."

Apparently, local firms are taking note of Weitz's political strategies:

As mass tort litigation has become a political issue, Weitz & Luxenberg has become politically active. On the state level, Weitz & Luxenberg recently brought on assembly speaker Sheldon Silver as of counsel, agreeing to pay him not as an employee, but according to the recovery in cases he attracts to the firm.

Silver took a beating in the New York press, which questioned whether he had a conflict of interest; Weitz insists that Silver's affiliation has nothing to do with politics: "New York hasn't been a tort-reforming state." The firm's federal politicking is more significant. For the last two years, Weitz has spent two days a week in Washington, lobbying against a proposed nationwide trust to end the asbestos litigation.

Have you heard of any local politicians joining any trial firms as "Of Counsel" lately?

On the same webpage, you'll find a fascinating article about how lawyers are getting into the documentary business. Juris Productions, run by Rob Feldman and Keiko Johnson, produces 60-minutes-styled video segments that attorneys use in pre-trial settlement meetings.

Johnson and Feldman, both former television journalists, are in the vanguard of a little-known but increasingly important business. In February 2002 they left six-figure salaries as producers at KNBC-TV news in Los Angeles to create settlement videos with the polish of network television broadcasts.

The company has an active client base of more than 20 firms, and Feldman estimates that they work on approximately 40 settlement documentaries a year. Juris had approximately $600,000 in revenue in 2003 and expects to at least double that number this year. The company has only eight full-time employees, but relies on a cadre of freelance videographers and moonlighting network professionals to fill in the holes.

Funny, I hadn't heard of trial lawyers using freelance journalists to produce documentaries...no, doesn't happen in Madison County...ever...

Cities can't afFord lawsuit over Crown Vics

2005-03-22T16:00:00.000-08:00

After a jury took only 2 hours last October to clear Ford Motor Company of any liability in a case over the safety of the Crown Victoria police cars, municipalities are feeling the sting of the lingering litigation.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois municipalities are working hard to get out of their class action suit - brought in ATRA #2 Hellhole St. Clair County - because Ford is unwilling to sell anymore Crown Victorias to any of the municipality plaintiffs.

Although the jury ruled the cars safe, a St. Clair County judge is still weighing the consumer fraud portion of the case.

According to the Tribune:

Illinois is the only state with a class-action suit involving law-enforcement agencies, including the City of Chicago. But since 2002, 75 municipalities in 20 states have sued Ford, saying that when the Crown Vic is struck from behind at high speeds, the fuel tank, which is between the rear axle and the bumper, can be punctured easily and leak gas.

In the last 20 years, a dozen officers have died and 10 have been severely burned nationwide in fiery rear-end crashes.

Despite the crash numbers, police say there's nothing like the Crown Vic, with its roomy interior and powerful engine. Since Chevrolet stopped making the Caprice squad car in 1999, the Crown Vic has been the only rear-wheel-drive vehicle available, police say.

Statistics bear out its popularity: Eighty-five percent of police agencies in the nation use the Crown Vic.

According to the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor website:

There have been no accidents or injuries in the state of Illinois. This case was a class-action trial based on the value of after-market equipment sought by plaintiffs and did not have anything to do with personal injury.

This case was about plaintiffs' lawyers representing Illinois officers that have had no accidents, asking for compensation for equipment that was not ordered, not paid for, and that does not add to the safety of the vehicle.

But, according to the AP story, the plaintiffs' attorney thinks Ford should keep feeding the hand that is biting them:

"I think it's coercion by Ford," said Trisha Murphy, a plaintiffs' attorney involved in the lawsuit.

The attorney for Ford counters: "The bottom line is either they are serious about the lawsuit and the claims in the lawsuit or they're not," he said. "If you think the vehicle is unsafe — we don't — but if you do, don't expect us to supply you vehicles."

A website dedicated to a "Safety Alert" for the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, which claims to be "sponsored by law enforcement officers and families affected by the...safety defect" hasn't been updated since September 27, about the time the case was set to go to trial in St. Clair County. Information and e-mail contacts on the site are directed to David Perry, the lead partner of Perry Haas law firm in Corpus Christi, TX.

A 2002 CBSNews.com story reports that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cleared Ford in its investigation: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the car exceeds federal standards for fuel system safety and the rate of fires was no greater than with Chevrolet Caprice police cars."

Back to the AP story:

Deputy Police Chief Dave Scanlan said he did not even know his department was part of the lawsuit because he never saw a letter informing the city it would be included unless it expressly declined. The department found out about it when it was time to buy more squad cars.

"We woke up and Ford wouldn't sell us any Crown Vics," he said.

What did you expect, Ford to start discounting its products to people suing them? If municipalities wait long enough, they'll probably be awarded coupons anyway...

Chief Tort Reform?

2005-03-17T05:00:00.000-08:00

In my ongoing pursuit of photo-blogging many of the supporters of legal reform, I'm adding a special March Madness edition today with the newest case of lawsuit abuse hitting our state's anchor institution of higher education, the University of Illinois.

News reports from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Bloomington Pantagraph, detail the Cook County lawsuit against the University's Board of Trustees.

From the Tribune:

The suit was filed Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court by the Illinois Native American Bar Association and two individuals. It asks the court to declare that the use of Illiniwek, the controversial symbol of the athletic teams at university's Urbana-Champaign campus, violates the Illinois Civil Rights Act.

Richard Hutchison, the Tinley Park attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the university's board "continues to circumvent" a decision on the fate of Illiniwek. "The board won't bring this matter to a head and do what's right, which is retire the chief," he said.

More from the Sun-Times:

The suit seeks an injunction to stop the chief. Attorney Richard Hutchinson said the 30-member law group -- of which he is a member -- is an "aggrieved party'' under the Civil Rights Act because members "suffer personally and professionally from the racist policy.'' Also aggrieved are two other plaintiffs on the suit, Hutchinson said: Stephen Naranjo, a Native American student at the U. of I.'s Chicago campus, and Roger Fontana, a Cherokee and a Champaign resident.

Tom Hardy, a U. of I. spokesman, said the university complies with all laws banning discrimination. He said the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education ruled in 1995 that Chief Illiniwek did not violate the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Using lawsuits to resolve matters that proponents can't win within Congress, state legislatures, and other quasi-legislative bodies is nothing new. It's the hallmark of judicial activism, in fact.

By suing, despite rulings from two federal executive branch agencies, anti-Chief proponents are attempting to circumvent both the legislative representation AND executive representation. In essence, who cares if Illinois voters have voted to elect a President and Governor and General Assembly...? If we can't sway the Board of Trustees, the General Assembly or the Governor, we'll just hope to find a friendly judge...

There must be many alternative viewpoints from other Native Americans about "The Chief". At ChiefIlliniwek.org, you will find photos from a 1982 presentation of the current Chief regalia made by Sioux Chief Frank Fools Crow to the University of Illinois. I enjoyed the quote posted on the site by the late Sioux Chief:

"The power and ways are given to us to be passed onto others. To think anything else is pure selfishness. We get more by giving them away, and if we do not give them away, we lose them."

Chief Crow probably won't get to be cross-examined by the lawyers in this upcoming lawsuit, unfortunately he passed away in 1989. Perhaps the University will contact his descendents to serve as expert witnesses.

I found a website called HonorTheChief.org, which has much of the history of the Illini and Chief traditions. I'm not a lawyer or judge, but I didn't see anything "racially offensive" or "demeaning." All I found was a lot of interesting information about the Native American history in our state, along with a group of students who - unbelievably enough - have really done their homework about the Chief. (That's a knock on college students in general, not UIUC students)

On the first day of the Fighting Illini's attempt to win a national championship, you would hope that someone wouldn't be using lawsuit abuse to drum up national attention for a cause they couldn't win within their University or their state's General Assembly. Unfortunately, while the Illini are marching their way through the Tourament of 64, they'll be running from a Cook County Court and some Chicago lawyers looking to capitalize on the team's success. Sad part is...the anti-Chief plaintiffs and their lawyers will lose nothing if this suit is thrown out, but state taxpayers will probably end up paying for University's lawyers to defend this suit.

(Editorial Note: I should mention that, while my sister and brother-in-law both attended the University of Illinois, I actually attended arch-rival Missouri. Despite my Tiger allegiance, I have always supported the Chief and will be rooting for the Illini this month. UIUC students support the Chief by more than a 2-1 margin.)

Update: Apparently the Chief is being sued in Federal Court in Urbana, according to Chief Illiniwek Blog. The Blog also reports on a comment from Senate President Emil Jones about his plans to increase pressure on the University to abandon the Chief, Jones told the Chicago Tribune: "I'm going to scalp him." And critics say the University is being racially insensitive?

Lawsuits Threaten Schools & Scouting

2005-03-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

Lawsuits are always a threat to taxpayers, especially to local school districts. Thanks to Diane Meyer at Respublica Blog for pointing out the latest threat of litigation against the Boy Scouts of America.

According to BPNews.net, the ACLU has threatened to sue any "taxpayer-funded organizations that charter BSA units":

The ACLU sent a letter to the Boy Scouts of America in February threatening legal action against public schools and other governmental agencies that charter Boy Scout groups on grounds that their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state.

Boy Scouts open their meetings by holding three fingers aloft and repeating an oath in which members vow their allegiance to God and country, resolve to help others and commit to keeping themselves morally straight. Central to the BSA's stated mission is character development and values-based leadership training.

ACLU leaders view these conservative emphases as warrant for legal action, according to documents on the ACLU website.

Defending against a wave of ACLU lawsuits would cost schools untold thousands of dollars, [a BSA spokesperson] said. Instead of risking financially draining litigation, the BSA is pulling scout units from schools as a matter of stewardship, he said.

The Department of Defense has already settled with the ACLU over its connection with the BSA, stemming from a 1999 lawsuit that the ACLU of Illinois filed against the DoD, HUD and the Chicago Public School District.

According to a November 2004 ACLU release:

"It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to its units across the globe to ensure that government officials are not engaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity," said Charles Peters of the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin who assisted the ACLU of Illinois in the lawsuit.

Lawsuit Lollapalooza

2005-03-14T10:30:00.000-08:00

I've heard many names for Madison County, but "Lawsuit Lollapalooza" is a new one. According to Wikipedia, Lollapalooza means "something unusual," which is probably an apt description for Madison County.

From the American Enterprise article:

Two years ago, 73-year-old Judge Nicholas Byron, the dean of Madison's judiciary, interrupted a defense attorney who moved that the trial ought to be held where the events occurred--three states and 700 miles away in Pennsylvania--rather than in Madison County. "You know, as a result of certain events that have occurred, and most of them concern me, I have come to certain revelations," said Judge Byron. "I want this on the record...I am not a Madison County judge.... I am concerned with all Americans. And you know what? ...I am going to expand the concept that all courts in the United States are for all citizens of the United States.... Motion denied." Judge Byron's advertising of his willingness to entertain suits from anywhere was no idle boast. At that point he was presiding over 25 percent of the national docket for cases of mesothelioma, the most deadly form of asbestos lung disease.

This argument is nothing new. Madison County personal injury lawyers and their spokespeople have barked the complaint that "this is the ONLY place in the country for plaintiffs to get a fair hearing" many times over.

This would seem rather insulting to EVERY OTHER jurisdiction in Illinois and America. Are they suggesting that no other judges in America are fair?

According to this month's ITLA's "Vested Interest" column, ITLA is "marshaling resources so that we can continue to counter dishonest attacks on trial lawyers, judges and the system of justice."

I guess we'll see if any of the mounting resources are spent defending the honor of any of the other Circuit judges in Illinois (you know, the ones that the trial lawyers have insulted by moving cases out of their courtrooms to the Madison County courtrooms), or if they'll only go to defend "America's Courthouse," the Lawsuit Lollapalooza that Madison County taxpayers are paying for in Edwardsville.

Lawyer: Sue Thyself

2005-03-10T20:00:00.000-08:00

As if there needed to be anymore evidence that an Madison and St. Clair counties have an overly litigious legal environment, now the Madison County Record reports that an Alton lawyer has resorted to suing himself.

According to the Record:

Alton attorney Emert Wyss thought he could make money in a Madison County class action lawsuit, but he accidentally sued himself instead. Now he has four law firms after his money - and he hired all four.

Wyss’s boomerang litigation started in 2002, when he invited Carmelita McLaughlin to his office at 1600 Washington St. in Alton. Acting as her attorney when she bought a home in Alton and when she refinanced it, on both occasions she had chosen Centerre Title--a company that Wyss owned--to close her loans.

He produced a retainer agreement providing for his legal services and those from the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Campbell and Brinkley of Godfrey, Freed and Weiss of Chicago, and Diab and Bock of Chicago. McLaughlin signed.

It then gets a little complicated, but suffice to say that it doesn't present the Madison County class action system in any better light. Wyss refers the plaintiff and case to the Lakin firm, which then files the class action suit against Alliance Mortgage.

According to The Record, from the depositions in the case:

"Emert Wyss, wearing his hat of Centerre Title company, collects the fees from Ms. McLaughlin, and now we have six, seven, eight months later, Emert Wyss wearing his hat as Ms. McLaughlin’s attorney suggests she file suit over the very fees his title company collected from her, is that right?" [Alliance Mortgage attorney Don] Brown asked.

Wyss replied, "That is right. It oversimplifies it, but that is correct."

Brown asked Wyss if he had an agreement with the Lakin firm, and he responded that he had a verbal agreement.

When Brown asked what it was, Wyss replied, “I am to receive 10 percent of the attorney fee collected on these cases.”

I guess when you buy a house in Madison County, you never know when you might be signing up for a class action lawsuit. Now, Judge Kardis has added Wyss and his title company as third-party defendants in the case, setting up a scenario where Wyss might be liable for part of the final judgment. And, unfortunately for Wyss, he might not get his 10 percent referral fee now.

The Record reports: Apparently, Wyss surrendered his ten percent. Kardis wrote, “Defendants were provided with a fee renunciation letter.” Kardis sealed the letter.

[Alliance attorneys] asked Kardis to disqualify all of McLaughlin‘s attorneys for improper solicitation, arguing that they used Wyss as a straw man to obtain cases from Centerre Title clients whom they could not directly approach.

Kardis denied the motion to disqualify McLaughlin’s attorneys.

County Boards for Tort Reform

2005-03-08T06:45:00.000-08:00

Today's photo-blogging takes us to the #1 & #2 Judicial Hellholes in America: Madison and St. Clair counties. People - including elected politicians - understand the dramatic toll that lawsuit abuse has taken on the region and state.

Both counties also have local leadership dominated by Democrats - the party normally swayed by the trial lawyer lobbying. However, the Democrats in Madison County (who hold a 19-10 majority) and St. Clair County (who hold a 21-8 majority) feel significantly different from their party leadership in Springfield.

Recently, the Madison County Board (the Board meets on the other side of those upper windows pictured) enacted a resolution calling upon state leaders to do something about this crisis.

From the Belleville News-Democrat: "County Board members unanimously Wednesday voted to approve a resolution requesting the state take action against medical insurance rates including placing caps on noneconomic damages."

Less than two weeks later, the St. Clair County Board enacted a similar resolution calling for the passage of House Bill 705:

From the Belleville News-Democrat: "The resolution specifically supported House Bill 705, a recently-introduced piece of legislation that would seek to reduce unwarranted lawsuits, enact sensible insurance reform, enhance medical discipline and protect physicians' assets in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The proposed legislation also would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000 in medical malpractice cases against physicians and at $500,000 in cases filed against hospitals."

""We have to show our support," said St. Clair County Board member Heinz Rudolf, D-Belleville. "We cannot afford to have one of our hospitals shut down."

Democrats for Tort Reform

2005-03-06T20:51:00.000-08:00

As promised late last week, I will start photo-blogging with some pictures of legal reform advocates from Illinois. First up, Democrat Senator Barack Obama. Obama voted in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act, along with 18 other Democrats in the US Senate.

Simmons' New "Investment"

2005-03-03T06:35:00.000-08:00

While a Madison County Record online poll might not be exactly scientific, the metro-east public weighed in by a 77-20 margin against local asbestos attorney John Simmons' effort to get state tax money for a minor league baseball complex for Marion, IL.

According to the Southern:

Not to be overlooked in the deal is requested financial assistance from the state. When Marion officials learned the state might not come through with $7.5 million in requested funds to build the stadium, [Marion Mayor Bob] Butler stepped forward with his tax increase proposal. Gov. Rod Blagojevich then announced last week that $3 million had been budgeted for the baseball project pending approval from the Legislature.

The City of Marion is either close to approving - or has approved - a sales tax increase to generate almost a half million a year for debt repayment on the $15 million construction loan. The General Assembly will consider the Governor's request for $3 million in state money.

Simmons, who will own the stadium, said the total cost of the project is $25 million, which includes the construction of the stadium and purchase of the land and new team.

"That's $10 million out of my pocket alone," he said.

Loyal ICJL.com readers will remember that John Simmons was investing in another Southern Illinois project last fall: Democratic Supreme Court candidate Gordon Maag. SimmonsCooper, the East Alton firm ran by Simmons and former Congressional candidate Jeffrey Cooper, and its partners donated more than $1.1 million to the various entities of the Maag campaign, including $360,000 to the Democratic Party PAC controlled by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Another $135,000 was given to Senate President Emil Jones PAC just three days after Election Day.

Now Simmons, who has almost unlimited riches from his winnings in the Madison County legal system, is looking to the state leaders in the Democratic Party to help him out.

Simmons told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

"I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety.... But the fact is, I'm a Democrat, I support Democrats."

[The Governor's Spokesperson Rebecca] Rausch said Simmons' political contributions to the governor and his party were unrelated to the administration's plans to help fund the stadium that Simmons will own. "We'd be just as happy to see the city of Marion own it," Rausch said.

If that's truly the case - and Marion taxpayers and state taxpayers are footing a majority of the bill - why not work that into the deal? Marion city officials say that they don't want the maintenance. But, couldn't the maintenance contract for the stadium be worked in with the lease?

Other Illinois legislators are questioning the ethical implications of such a large donor recieving a $3 million state grant, when the Illinois budget is already stretched very thin:

"It certainly smells fishy," said state Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Highland. "This is a governor who talks about reform in government and reform in ethics, and we just keep seeing shadow after shadow cast across this administration. ... and this is another example of it."

Madison County Record's Dicta column speculates that Simmons' Marion investment might be the first step of outreach in a possible Congressional run against John Shimkus. Whether that's the case or not will remain to be seen. But, it's interesting to see that lawyers are now choosing baseball over judges for their investment strategies.

"I believe it's a good deal for Marion," Simmons said. "Are they helping me make money? Yeah. But I could make more putting my money somewhere else. But that wouldn't be as fun."

E-Harassment: New Fan to ICJL Blog!

2005-03-02T08:30:00.000-08:00

I guess we'd like welcome the newest "reader" to ICJL Blog...

Yesterday, our newest "reader" spent 16 hours, 16 minutes, and 21 seconds on our Blog. Definitely a committed visitor!!!

Unfornately, our new "reader" has also started putting very personal comments on some messages. Perhaps this "reader" is fairly new to the Blogosphere, and doesn't appreciate the time and effort made to keeping comments and discussion civil. For example, trial attorney Evan Schaeffer's Blog Notes from the (Legal) Underground presents some very enlightened discussion about tort reform. Evan points out his opinions on the issue and people like myself, Ted Frank from Overlawyered.com, and other "legal eagles" from both sides of the debate post comments. I have even guest blogged on Schaeffer's site. Heck, even John Hopkins is now a guest columnist at The Record.

However, this new "reader" to ICJL Blog has started commenting only in very personal and demeaning ways. It reminds me of a series of e-mails over a 43-day period, in which Ed Murnane - President of ICJL and the co-contributor of this Blog - was harassed with disparaging daily e-mails. The e-mails, one of which included a picture of Ed's house, were copied to the metro-east media.

I might write a future column about Political E-stalking, but for now I'd like to just address Mr. Anonymous, the person posting flames on ICJL Blog.

The IP address for this "Anonymous" poster (24.171.17.226) is also the IP address used for the Sorry Works Coalition Newsletter (24.171.17.226), which is sent by the spokesperson for the group Victims and Families United. This is the SAME entity that sent the 43-day e-mail barrage to Ed Murnane, the SAME entity that allegedly violated the constitutional rights of Karmeier campaign volunteer Dwight Kay, and the SAME entity that is rumored to have been involved in other antics from the Karmeier-Maag campaign.

In an effort to keep this Blog from denigrating into a mere existence of comment "flames" - I'm suspending "Anonymous" comments and removing all but one of the new "readers" comments, so everyone can see the anger in it's portrayal. I enjoy receiving comments from everyone else, so I'd hate to have to fully suspend "comments" altogether (like many other organizations have).

While I've been too busy to post daily on this Blog, I feel like we've been able to provide some alternative viewpoints on legal reform issues. Our ongoing research presented here - and at ICJL.org - has even been recently cited by PointofLaw.com. We have a sizable readership (more than you'd think), and I've received much positive feedback from people (from in the Capitol to several here in the Blog comments). While this new "reader" might have lots of time on his/her hands (don't get me wrong, I'm honored by yesterday's 16+ hour visit), I don't have time to "watch" for commenting "flames" all day long, I would like to think a "babysitter" for this Blog would not be needed.

Perhaps the "reader" will provide an apology to all of you - the ICJL Blog readership - for the "commenting" rights he/she has taken away from the Blog.

I should mention that, in the past year, the following invasions into privacy and intimidation tactics have been lodged against legal reform advocates just here in Illinois:

- The digging and cataloguing of trash from a state SENATOR who favors reform
- The publication of the home telephone number of that Senator's INTERN
- The investigation of the ICJL President's 20-year-old personal business records
- The invasion and intimidation of a Karmeier campaign volunteer's family
- The electronic mail harassment of the ICJL President and the media
- The filing of a frivolous lawsuit against the Karmeier campaign manager
- The surveillance of the Karmeier campaign manager's home
- The harassment of the Karmeier campaign by a suspicious documentary crew

I guess I'm just another victim in the trail of intimidation and insults.

Perhaps the new "reader" owes a "sorry" to all of the opponents of legal reform who choose to debate this issue in a more civil manner. Sorry, he's only giving all of you a BAD name.

And, in direct response to the "reader," thank you for proving the point of yesterday's column: that a vast majority of the "independent" opponents of legal reform are - indeed - either funded, founded, hired, sponsored, supported, etc., by trial lawyers. Despite Mr. Angoff's past professional experience as Democratic Governor Mel Carnahan's Director of Insurance, he is/was in fact "hired" by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. Therefore, he doesn't represent an unbiased look at the issue. Neither does the "Anonymous" commenter on this site.

I'll now end my response to our new "reader" by photo-blogging many supporters of legal reform, expressly for the enjoyment of our new "reader." Perhaps we can extend the length of his cyber-visit beyond the 18 hour 45 minute record he/she now holds.

Finally, thank you to all of the proponents and opponents of legal reform who read our Blog without attempting to drag it into the gutter.

Will the REAL ‘conflict of interest’ be raised?

2005-02-28T22:01:00.000-08:00

Trial lawyers and their accomplices ganged up on the state’s only major medical liability insurer last Wednesday calling the business relationship between the non-profit Illinois State Medical Society and the non-profit ISMIE Mutual (the physician-owned medical liability insurer) a “conflict of interest”.

However, the REAL “conflict of interest” is the relationship between the former director Jay Angoff – posing as a “former industry regulator” – and the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA), which “hired” Angoff sometime before May 2004.

According to then-ITLA President Michael Schostok in his May 2004 Vested Interest column:

What wasn’t as clear was how the medical malpractice liability insurance problem would develop here in Illinois. As it turned out, this issue consumed much of the organization’s efforts over the last year as ITLA sought to preserve the rights of Illinois citizens and uncover the truth behind this reoccurring problem. We responded in an aggressive fashion by hiring a well-respected and nationally-known insurance industry expert, Jay Angoff, to analyze the reasons behind the recent escalation of medical malpractice insurance premiums and to inform state legislators about the reasons behind the “crisis.”

So, when Angoff attacked ISMS and ISMIE last Wednesday, was Angoff providing ITLA with the “aggressive” attack on the insurance industry that ITLA paid him to provide?

While newspapers reported Angoff’s testimony as a “former industry regulator” reciting a perceived “conflict of interest” between ISMS and ISMIE, House legislators were prohibited by the lack of dialogue to ask Angoff about his much more obvious and deliberately concealed “conflict of interest” with the ITLA.

And this isn’t the first time that Angoff has been a paid spokesperson for a trial lawyer’s group…

According to the Baltimore Sun, Angoff is also a paid consultant for the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association. Angoff was also an expert witness for the Kentucky Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Roger Brown & Associates, the firm for which Angoff serves “Of Counsel,” is a plaintiff’s firm specializing in very serious personal injury cases, including medical malpractice, class actions, and wrongful death. Angoff’s biography page lists his memberships with the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Further investigation of Jay Angoff’s past affiliations includes stints as counsel for Congress Watch and the National Insurance Consumer Organization, both founded by “consumer” (aka trial lawyer) activist Ralph Nader.

Angoff even has a history of “attacks” on tort reformers, cited in the famous 1990 Forbes “Ralph Nader Inc.” article:

“When American Tort Reform Association former president James Coyne asked Nader about his plaintiff attorney funding at a press conference in Washington, he stormed from the podium and his supporter, Jay Angoff, rushed over and punched Coyne in the eye.”

(Only online reprint available at VDARE.com)

Walter Olson reports on PointofLaw.com that Angoff recently represented the Center for Justice and Democracy and ATLA on media conference calls. Also included on the conference calls was William McNary of USAction, the group that ran advertisements criticizing President Bush during his January visit to Madison County.

So how does a trial lawyer who has professional associations with five different trial lawyer groups and Ralph Nader get invited to testify as an insurance industry “expert” before an Illinois House Committee? Without any mention of his recent – or perhaps current – contracts with trial lawyer associations?

Will only the trial lawyers be represented at the reform table again this year? Hopefully, legislators will get to the bottom of these unasked questions today.

Otherwise, someone needs to tell Speaker Madigan, who attended nearly all of the three hour committee hearing last Wednesday, that this year’s effort to reform medical liability is just another half-hearted effort at attacking anything but the REAL problem – the lawsuit abuse perpetrated upon our state’s doctors.

Did you hear the one about the lawyer?

2005-02-09T08:24:00.000-08:00

Lawyer jokes have upheld legal muster in New York this week, as two men arrested for "disorderly conduct" for telling lawyer jokes outside of a Long Island courthouse received a favorable outcome in front of a grand jury.

"It's still legal in America to tell jokes - even about lawyers," said the attorney for the defendants, Harvey Kash and Carl Lanzisera.

As the Chicago Sun-Times reported today:

Kash and Lanzisera are founders of Americans for Legal Reform, a group that uses confrontational tactics to urge greater public access to the courts. They said they have mocked lawyers outside courts for years.

Kash, 70, testified he was exercising his First Amendment right when he shared a few lawyer jokes with his friend Lanzisera, 65. Some people giggled, but a lawyer in the line told them to pipe down and reported them to court officers. They were arrested for allegedly being abusive and causing a disturbance.

The grand jury dismissed the charge against Kash. The charge against Lanzisera was dropped because of insufficient evidence.

What was the joke that got them into the legal mess? According to the Sun-Times:

"How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?" Kash reported asked. "His lips are moving," the pair howled in unison.

Check out their Americans for Legal Reform website, it has a "lawyer joke of the day" and the song, "I Dreamed I was a Lawyer," is at least worth the time.

Maybe the group should bring their $50,000 challenge to Madison County? Not sure of the outcome, but it would certainly be entertaining. They would arrive, immediately be served with subpoena's (the proverbial Madison County red carpet for those favoring judicial reform), and then the fun would only be starting...

Hopkins to Maag: "Lawsuit is a colossal bad idea"

2005-01-31T10:01:00.000-08:00

Madison County trial lawyer John Hopkins (who doubles as the anti-Tort Reform columnist in the Madison County Record), asks former Appellate judge Gordon Maag to drop his $110 million defamation lawsuit against the Illinois Coalition for Jobs & Prosperity.

According to Hopkins:

"Gordon Maag’s $110 million lawsuit is a colossal bad idea, and should be dropped.

Gordon, I have known you for 25 years, argued against you as a lawyer in the beginning of our careers, later to stand before you as a judge. I do consider you to be friend, albeit not a close one. Your lawsuit continues to feed the beast of negative publicity, flaming the fires of hysteria, not only against you, but all of us on this side of the ball."

A statement from the Coaltion for Jobs & Prosperity about the suit can be found here. The Belleville News-Democrat reported just after Christmas that an out-of-county judge would be selected for the case. The judge chosen by IL Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary McMorrow is Associate Judge Stuart Shiffman of Sangamon County.

(UPDATE: Sorry for the absence of postings in the past few weeks. Things will soon be back on track after a series of server problems on our main site - and announcing today - a redesign of the look of www.icjl.org. Please check it out...)

Americans favor Caps on Pain and Suffering

2005-01-12T06:39:00.000-08:00

In a study released by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which is a nonprofit organization that studies health care issues, Americans overwhelmingly favor reforming our medical liability system.

In a press conference held yesterday, the School and Foundation released some interesting facts about their survey of American views of the current tort system and efforts to change it, including:
- Seventy-two percent support legislation requiring an independent specialist review of a case before a lawsuit could be filed
-63 percent favored caps on damages for pain and suffering

Meanwhile, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting a "steep increase" in trauma in Illinois trauma patients at St. Louis University (SLU) Hospital, which is considered the first hospital over the river from Metro-East Illinois.

The number of Illinois patients DOUBLED over the past two years, up to 946 last year from 471 in 2002, and now accounts for 34 percent of the hospital's overall trauma caseload.

More from the article:

Barnes-Jewish Hospital, meanwhile, reported 316 trauma admissions from Illinois last year, up 34 percent from 2003. In 2001, the hospital admitted only 50 trauma patients from Illinois, Jennifer Arvin, a hospital spokeswoman, said Monday.

Arvin said Barnes continued to see an increase in inpatient neurosurgery cases from Illinois last year - 687 of them, 33 percent more than in 2003.

BJC is now seeing more than SIX TIMES more trauma patients since 2001? Incredible, but true. That's more than 1200 Illinois patients who lost critical time in an emergency being driven or airlifted to St. Louis because an abusive legal system has driven neuro doctors from the Metro-East.

Propagating ATLA Propaganda - You Paid For It!

2005-01-07T18:00:00.000-08:00

One Illinois congresswoman appears to have no problem being propped up by propagating the trial lawyers' propaganda.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, one of the most pro-trial-lawyer legislators in DC, has lifted ATLA propaganda directly from the ATLA website and pasted it directly onto her own (taxpayer-supported) legislative website.

ATLA propaganda sheet on medical malpractice (see highlighted area):

Congresswoman Schakowsky's web-version of the propaganda (see highlighted area):

The least she could do is attribute the propaganda to its misleading source: The Trial Lawyers.

And we - the taxpayers - pay for her site!

Schakowsky was one of the most outspoken floor opponents of the Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 - along with former Rep. Tom Dart, Rep. Lou Lang, Rep. Jay Hoffman, and former Rep. Rod Blagojevich. She's also married to Robert Creamer, former head of the ultra-leftwing Illinois Public Action.

(As Ted Frank points out on PointOfLaw.com, the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA)can't win a debate on the medical liability crisis, so they've resorted to pulling the quotes from their poorly-argued stories pushed to the media in 2004.)

Stop the Insanity!

2005-01-06T12:05:00.000-08:00

The Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch announced the results of its 8th Annual "Wacky Warning Label" contest today (past results available from Ted Frank at Overlawyered.com).

The Winner:
A flushable toilet brush that warns users:
“Do not use for personal hygiene”

(Photo used with M-LAW permission)

As if the CJ&D Zany Immunity Awards weren't enough to remind us of how litigious our world is, now our fellow citizen needs help reminding not use a toilet brush as a tooth brush?!?

As if rubbing salt in the wound (Warning: This is just a cliche, PLEASE do not try rubbing salt in wound in your own home), CJ&D President Joanne Doroshow is quoted by the AP:

"It's much better to be very cautious ... than to be afraid of being made fun of by a tort reform group."

The bigger question is society's need for these warning labels. The obvious answer is that the manufacturer has put the warning label on the product to buffer them from litigation.

But, in its practical sense...Do we, as a society, now need a reminder to not use toilet brushes as tooth brushes? I would be insulted if anyone ever "reminded" me of the fact. You should feel insulted that trial lawyers and their spokespeople now require it!

It's not a question of being "ridiculed" by tort reform groups, the fact that the label exists is an insult from trial lawyers to the rest of us in humanity.

Madison County is "Magic"...?

2005-01-06T07:34:00.000-08:00

Before commenting on the possible "magical" nature of Madison County, I'd like to again thank Evan Schaeffer for his invitation to Guest Post on Notes from the (Legal) Underground. Today, Evan has posted a counterpoint response to my post, which I hope garners some comments today on either of our sites.

Thanks to Professor Bainbridge for calling my Guest Post "thoughtful" yesterday, although the only thing "money" in Madison County seems to be our legal system. Also, Rich Miller of Capitol Fax noticed us yesterday, calling ICJL Blog "pretty in-your-face stuff at times, which makes it an interesting read." Thanks for the compliment (I think).

As for Madison County's "magic," I wanted to briefly point out something that Walter Olson caught in The American Spectator. In the article "Tort Reform’s Ground Zero," William Tucker details a quote from infamous Mississippi trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs:

[W]hat I call the "magic jurisdiction,"…[is] where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected; they're State Court judges; they're popul[ists]. They've got large populations of voters who are in on the deal, they're getting their [piece] in many cases. And so, it's a political force in their jurisdiction, and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you're a defendant in some of these places. The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money.… The cases are not won in the courtroom. They're won on the back roads long before the case goes to trial. Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or the law is.

The thought that a trial lawyer would acknowledge this type of system must be offensive to citizens who trust that our American constitution will bring us fair courts - and especially offensive to voters who often elect state judges.

Tucker goes on to comment:

Trial lawyers are able to concentrate their firepower in "magic jurisdictions" like Madison because of loopholes in the federal rules of procedure. The trick is to keep the case from being bounced up to federal court, where class actions are much more difficult to certify and where the judges are less susceptible to persuasion.

So, is Madison County "magic"? Tucker acknowledgs it. President Bush certainly acknowledged it yesterday in his visit to Madison County. Perhaps local officials and judges would be less embarassed by adjectives like "magic"?

Remember, the reference to "magic" only comes from one of the nation's most famous trial lawyers. I guess one man's "magic" is another's "hellhole". Either way, in Madison County, the results are the same: Lost jobs, lost doctors, lost opportunity.

Reformer-In-Chief

2005-01-05T14:11:00.000-08:00

The Presidential Visit - Early Coverage

2005-01-05T13:49:00.000-08:00

I'll have some photos up from the President's Visit to Collinsville shortly. Until then, Diane Meyer from Respublica has a good amount of Blog coverage, and KSDK Channel 5 has segments of the speech online. KMOV Channel 4 has photos, the AP story, and some video online (subscription site).

The most comprehensive story is available now from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, including parts of the AP story and some localized information.

Guest Blogging

2005-01-05T05:38:00.000-08:00

Today, we have a guest blog on "Notes from the (Legal) Underground," the blog of Metro-East trial lawyer Evan Schaeffer. Some might ask, "Why would you want to guest blog on a trial lawyer site?" A fair question. I've found that while Evan obviously feels differently about tort reform issues than the Illinois Civil Justice League, he has taken the time and space on his blog to address Tort Reform and he has been fair to advocates who have defended our viewpoint.

I encourage everyone to check out the Guest Blog, and defend our viewpoint when - I won't even pose "if" - our opponents post comments later today. But, I thank Evan for the opportunity to Guest Blog.

My Guest Blog touches on the comments made by Congressman Jerry Costello, who was once an opponent of tort reform and now appears to have changed his tune. Additional analysis of those comments is presented in a letter-to-the-editor by Godfrey retired surgeon Bob Hamilton, which appeared in this morning's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. His comments about Federalism and our state court system are definitely worth the read.

I'll post photos from the President's visit later this afternoon.

“Moore” attention to the crisis

2005-01-04T07:28:00.000-08:00

The “zany” folks at the Center for Justice & Democracy will make what we think is their very first visit to Madison County today, holding a press conference prior to the President’s visit.

It’s hard to find credible any organization that has as one of its top advisors “filmmaker” Michael Moore. Moore has shown how friendly he is with the medical industry, pledging to start a new film project – with pleasant working title of Sicko – that “exposes” breakdowns in the healthcare system.

So it’s no wonder that the Moore-backed CJ&D is here to rip President Bush in his first visit to our Judicial Hellhole.

We featured the CJ&D a few weeks ago for the release of their new “zany” Top 10 immunity awards, which we believe are great examples of how state legislatures are reacting to just how crazy our civil justice system has become (if you missed it, please visit Ted Frank’s analysis on Overlawyered.com).

One immunity that is NOT mentioned in the study is one that would benefit doctors most in Illinois: immunity to apologize to their patients. The concept, which is inherently different from the trial lawyer’s SorryWorks proposal, would give medical providers the ability to say they are sorry for a 72-hour period after any medical mistake (we think the law would be even better without the three-day sunset) and has been annually sponsored by the Illinois State Medical Society (this year Senator Bill Haine pushed for the legislation).

The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association vehemently opposes all medical liability reform in our state legislature, including this very sensible reform. They, of course, ask doctors to say they are Sorry and then expect to use this apology as evidence against the doctor in court.

I’ll be on pins and needles wondering if the CJ&D will be stopping off at the Madison County Record after they ripped into the publication with a December release, again showing that the only “acceptable” view is their own Moore-inspired view. Not much “democracy” in that!

Old Year's Resolution (Final Results)

2005-01-02T19:58:00.000-08:00

The Holiday Week presented an immense amount of interesting news. While there's no word on any interesting New Years Resolutions for the Madison County legal system, there was interesting resolution to 2004's legal record, including a News-Democrat report about new class action litigation regarding the Pfizer medication Celebrex.

The Madison County suit (04-L-1422) was filed by St. Louis firm Marker Armstrong LLP, which includes two attorneys who met while working for Carr Korein Tillery. Armstrong, in fact, is a former law clerk for former Appellate Judge Gordon Maag.

The Madison County Record details the top class action filers in 2004, which is seemingly more diverse from previous years. I believe this is first time (at least in the past three to four years) that Korein Tillery filed more than the Lakin Law Firm. As Brian Brueggemann reported last week, the overall numbers are down in Madison County from 2003, however ATRA recently reported in their Judicial Hellholes report that class action litigation in St. Clair County is now on the rise.

Madison County to Move Suit

2004-12-24T06:35:00.000-08:00

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting this morning that the local judges are seeking to move the Maag Defamation Case OUT of Madison County.

The Chicago Tribune has a whole lot to say about the Maag case in their editorial, "Gordon Maag's revenge," including:

Given that Maag is from Madison County, suing for the big dollars may come naturally. But, as with so much that comes out of that corner of the state, this suit perfectly illustrates the misuse of the state's justice system that so disgusted voters as they made judicial choices last month.

And, if you're enjoying a Pop-Tart this Christmas Eve morning, make sure you keep an eye on the toaster. Attorneys have been busy doing the same, working to lodge new litigation at the Pop-Tart producers. They've even hired an "expert" Pop-Tart cooker!

According to this morning's Post-Dispatch editorial:

Is this a great country, or what? Not only is it a place where you can blame someone else when you forget the Pop-Tarts in the toaster, but it's also a place where a kid can study hard to get an electrical engineering degree and make a living as an expert at toasting Pop-Tarts.

In Madison County, this case would bring a couple million bucks, easy.

"Zany" is Just the Word

2004-12-23T11:04:00.000-08:00

The Center for Justice & Democracy, a "national consumer" organization, has issued its Top Ten list for Zany Immunity laws, in an effort to discredit the tort reform movement.

As Ted Frank at Overlawyered.com smartly points out, the Top 10 list includes reforms that simply make sense and would only seem necessary because of the litigiousness of the country in which we now live.

As Ted demonstrates, these "awards" almost demonstrate our view perfectly:

How ridiculous are the CJD awards? One of the top ten "zany immunity laws" refers to "immunity" granted to placebo manufacturers and distributors. Except the immunity in question isn't immunity--it's an exception to a criminal statute prohibiting the sale of fake drugs!

Obviously biased already, the CJ&D appears to have furthered their cause by adding filmmaker Michael Moore to their advisory board.

"Corporate freeloaders are always looking for a handout and these kind of immunity laws are no different," he's quoted as saying in their press release, "And they are doing everything they can to convince decent, hardworking Americans to go along as their legal rights are simply taken away. How long are we going to tolerate this?"

One "zany" example given by CJ&D is immunity from liability for possible injuries sustained by the theft of anhydrous ammonia. Even the reports states: "This immunity may be of special interest to accident-prone thieves who depend on pilfered ammonia for operation of their illegal meth amphetamine labs."

Nice to know someone's looking out for the thieves' right to sue.

(This extra post will be the last regular post during the Holiday weekend. Hope everyone enjoys safe travel!)

Maag Quote

2004-12-23T08:57:00.000-08:00

As I point out in my comment over on Schaeffer's "Notes from the (Legal) Underground," Gordon Maag was fairly clear on his thoughts about First Amendment freedoms in his Statement of Candidacy, provided to ICJL in early 2004 (and available at www.illinoisjudges2004.com).

In his statement, Maag states:

"Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential to our democracy. Robust public debate and complete and accurate publication of newsworthy events is critical to a free society."

Maag also wrote the following about his $2000 per contributor fundraising pledge:

"There should not even be a hint that large corporations or wealthy individuals, be they doctors, lawyers, or businessmen enjoy a special status. In contrast, my opponent’s campaign spokesman has announced that his committee will not adopt any contribution limits. This speaks volumes about Lloyd Karmeier’s integrity and independence."

Maag's limit and pledge was certainly broken by the nearly $2.5 million in (mostly in-kind) contributions from the Democratic Party of Illinois (I won't even take the space to analyze the myriad of $100,000 contributions from local trial lawyers to DPI) and the nearly $1.3 million from Justice for All PAC (funded mostly by trial lawyers).

Judge Moran Recuses Himself

2004-12-23T07:14:00.000-08:00

Judge Moran recused himself (see News-Democrat, AP story) from the $110 Million Maag Defamation Case yesterday, a move that could be repeated by other Madison County Circuit judges (see Madison County Record analysis) over the next few weeks.

Among the editorials from local newspapers analyzing the merits/motives of the suit, the Belleville News-Democrat weighed in with its opinion:

The irony of this lawsuit is too rich. The Supreme Court race basically was a referendum on our skewed civil court system and the need for tort reform. So what does Maag do? He turns around and files this over-the-top lawsuit. He filed it in -- where else? -- Madison County, the No. 1 judicial hellhole in the nation.

Meanwhile, the Southern Illinoisan has given Maag its "Thumbs Down" today, noting:

While it is certainly within Maag's rights to file a lawsuit, the outrageous sum of money he is seeking and the overall indication would seem that Maag is simply a sore loser.

Finally, Godfrey trial lawyer Evan Schaeffer paints a more optimistic view for Maag's suit, stating:

Whether or not you agree with Judge Maag's decision to sue, it's not hard to see why he was upset about the flier: it's false from start to finish, and makes Maag out to be complete scum--a monster, in fact. It certainly must give him a bad feeling to know his long and distinguished career on the bench ended like this, with his reputation in tatters.

In an effort of full disclosure, I should state that ICJL, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Southern Illinoisan all endorsed Maag's opponent, Justice Karmeier. Schaeffer, as he states in his post, supported Maag.

While I agree with Schaeffer's analysis that "it's not hard to see why (Maag) was upset about the flier," I would simply point out that the Maag campaign was the first to "go negative" in the Supreme Court race (specifically, on or around October 15th and two days prior to the first Anti-Maag negative spot). In fact, Maag made negative comments about Judge Karmeier's experience from almost Day One. Both sides aired "negative" commercials for more than two weeks at the end of the campiagn, and the ads painted both Maag AND Karmeier as "soft" on crime.

I've studied the charges that Maag's campaign made against Judge Karmeier, and I could easily see how Justice Karmeier and his family could have been "upset" by Maag's ads. Specifically, Judge Karmeier was assailed for letting a criminal go who raped and sodomized three children, however the defendant in that case was never tried before Judge Karmeier for those crimes (they had been dropped before trial in a plea between now-Circuit Judge John Baricevic and now-Appellate Judge Clyde Keuhn).

However, the beauty (and it's not always pretty) of our American democratic system of electing public officials, is that these claims can be fairly asserted and debated within the public domain, and then voters can choose who to believe and/or trust. You simply don't see President Bush or Senator Kerry hopping into Madison County to sue Dan Rather or the Swiftees?

Maag's defeat, while anecdotally attributable to thousands of different things, is rooted in his (heavy) support from the local, state and national plaintiffs bar. The financial support for his campaign provides nearly 5 million (dollars worth of) reasons why the voters rejected him. The failure of DPI Chairman Mike Madigan ($2.5M) to resolve our medical malpractice crisis, the aggressiveness of the class-action leader Lakin Firm ($280k) and the asbestos leader SimmonsCooper firm ($1.1M) all made voters wary of Judge Maag.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial (Oct. 17, can't find a link) summed the Maag campaign very simply: "Judge Maag, by contrast, has his roots in the same sleazy, back-scratching, money-grubbing politics that made the Madison County mess." This is the issue upon which voters rejected Gordon Maag.

Rex Carr's busy December

2004-12-21T13:16:00.000-08:00

Rex Carr, the lawyer behind the $110 million Maag lawsuit, was busy spending his money in other places today. According to the St. Louis Business Journal, Carr transferred $500,000 from his RC Holding Company to International Fuel Technology, of which he serves as a director. According to the IFT website, which lists their Insider and Rule 144 transactions for 2004, Carr has already invested more than $1 million in the past 12 months.

From the St. Louis Business Journal:

Rex Carr, a director of International Fuel and senior partner of the Carr Korein Tillery law firm in St. Louis, is president and 41 percent-owner of R C Holding, which owns and operates five hotel boats in France. In addition, he holds 26 percent of the outstanding stock of International Fuel.

Carr's other businesses include Art Company London, which manufactures and sells art reproduced on canvas; the Carlyle Limited Partnership, which operates a marina at Carlyle Lake in Illinois; and numerous apartment complexes in Illinois.

Drunks and Dopeheads - Part II

2004-12-20T17:17:00.000-08:00

Gordon Maag picked the right lawyer to file a "defamation" suit.

This is what Rex Carr had to say about the American Tort Reform Association last week:

“They (ATRA) must be drinking Benzene. They are in the pay of the Chamber of Commerce to spread the big lie and to restrict poor victims from getting what they deserve.

"They (ATRA) are drunks and dopeheads."

Definition: Problem (noun)

2004-12-20T17:06:00.000-08:00

Problem - noun - (1): an intricate unsettled question (2): a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation (3): difficulty in understanding or accepting. (See Madison County Courthouse)

If there was any need for a continuing examples of the tort problems in Madison County, former Appellate Judge Gordon Maag provided another exhibit with 2004-L-1395, a $110 million defamation suit against the Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity, its chairman Ronald Gidwitz and treasurer Gregory W. Baise, as well as the Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

The suit was filed by Rex Carr, an East St. Louis attorney who previously practiced with class action litigator Steve Tillery. Carr is a former president of the Inner Circle of Advocates, an exclusive club of American trial lawyers.

(Interestingly enough, Rex Carr's website provides the only known link of a law firm website to the Victims and Families United website.)

Ghost of Trial Lawyer Future

2004-12-19T14:21:00.000-08:00

If you enjoy "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, a quick read of The Story of the Ghost of Judicial Hellhole Future (aka John Hopkins' new guest column in the Madison County Record) will bring a holiday smile to your face. Hopkins' satirical account of a trial lawyer being "visited" by a ghost in the Stagger Inn parking lot alternates between an apology for the "greedy baby lawyers" who have invaded Madison County and a manifesto for trial lawyers to return to power.

While I'm unsure how much - if any - of the story is set in fact (although I'd like to know more about the $8000 given to "Old Man Lakin" to "retire the Maag campaign debt"), I found two paragraphs in this column particularly interesting.

Trial lawyers enjoy telling the media that there's nothing to the Judicial Hellhole assessments of Madison County. But this quote adds an interesting twist, considering it was written by one of more famous Edwardsville plaintiffs attorneys:

“We had an edge on the plaintiff’s side, no question, but it reflected the blue collar make up of the place. It was kept under the radar screen, nobody went overboard, nobody drew attention to the Courts. The lawyers and the judges were respected by the public, respected each other, and respected the law. Now the place is crawling with reporters, reformers and baby lawyers, all drawn to Judicial Hellhole No. 1."

If someone's ready to go on the record about "an edge to the plaintiff's side," it being "kept under the radar screen," what going "overboard" exactly means, and who "baby lawyers" refers to, I'd be ready to see it posted as a comment to this post.

The story by Hopkins finishes with a Holiday Trial Lawyer Manifesto:

"But you and the other members of the practicing Bar have the power to reverse the trends, if only you have the heart, have the will, to take back YOUR legal system, and bring back your county.”

Remember, newspaper accounts by trial lawyers always deny any bias or problem with the courts, so these statements must actually be as fictional as the story, huh?

I always thought that the public's tax dollars paid for our local court system, so I'm "shocked" that anyone (ghost or fictional trial lawyer) would suggest that they OWN the legal system. While the "ghost" is "reversing" events from 2004, it's funny that there's no mention of dumpster-diving or intimidation of campaign volunteer's families?

Unfortunately, Hopkins' new Christmas tale lacks any surprise ending (I was hoping for a trial lawyer wandering the streets of Edwardsville giving away his personal fortune). An alternate ending to the story is just completed: "God bless us every one," said Tiny Tim, who would be left in the Metro-East without any doctors in 2005.

A Tale of Two Blogs

2004-12-19T13:31:00.000-08:00

The Madison County Record mentions our new ICJL Blog in their weekly Dicta column, which also features speculation about early retirements for Byron, Ferguson & Kardis (the three judges retained in 2002). While the image of "dueling blogs" is probably harder to visualize than "dueling banjos" or "dueling pianos," we should stress that we're not trying to compete with Notes from the (Legal) Underground.

Speaking of "Notes," Evan Schaeffer has a short story about his recent brush with KMOX radio host Charlie Brennan and I-LAW Director Steve Schoeffel. If Schaeffer felt silenced by Brennan's early "click," imagine how Schoeffel felt when he was served with notice of the TRO issued by Williamson County Judge Phillip Palmer. Getting hung up on definitely lacks the legal fees of defending a TRO.

"Desperate Judges" TV Show

2004-12-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

While many trial lawyers fail to even acknowledge the existence of a problem (see T. Evan Schaeffer's post on ATRA announcement from yesterday), which is the same denials that have existed through the medical malpractice negotiations, the Karmeier-Maag race, and now the post-election period, even well-respected and nationally-renowned news organizations such as the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and St. Louis Post-Dispatch are acknowledging the problems with Madison County.

Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune wrote an editorial about Madison County, citing the late Judge John DeLaurenti (a 27-year veteran of the Madison County bench) as saying there is "some merit to the accusation of bias". The Belleville News-Democrat has weighed in on the emigration of class action suits from Madison to St. Clair County. The local paper says: "The message to Illinois' reformers is to keep fighting and not get discouraged." Good point.

The best column has to be from St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan, who is making a pitch for a new Madison County-based sitcom to be called (I'm not kidding here) "Desperate Judges," a parity off of the new hit series Desperate Housewives. I'm not sure how ABC will try to utilize Monday Night Football to promote this new courtroom drama, but I'm hoping it doesn't have anything to do with towels in the locker room like their last ill-timed promo.

'Drunks And Dopeheads'

2004-12-15T23:42:00.000-08:00

So prominent St. Clair County trial lawyer Rex Carr thinks ATRA (American Tort Reform Association) is a bunch of "drunks and dopeheads." It's good that the whole world is getting a chance to see why Madison and St. Clair counties have the reputation they have. It's not just the judges, but the lawyers (some) too.

Not One But TWO Judicial Hellholes?

2004-12-14T15:33:00.000-08:00

There's a wide-spread belief that when the American Tort Reform Association releases its annual "judicial hellholes" on Wednesday, Madison County will not only retain its title as the worst legal jurisdiction in the US, but that neighboring St. Clair County will be pretty close to the top of the list ( or should that be bottom of the list? ) as well.

If that's the case, the ICJL is predicting it will be the last time the two will be viewed so negatively. The recent election of Justice Lloyd Karmeier to the Illinois Supreme Court, and the removal of Gordon Maag from the Appellate Court, show that area voters are ready for reform. They are not likely to sit on the sidelines any longer if they do not see improvement in the local courts -- and that means all circuit and appellate judges ought to do a behavior and fairness check.

Record to Expand Coverage

2004-12-14T06:36:00.000-08:00

The Madison County Record publisher Brian Timpone, enjoying new publicity from an Associated Press story this morning, says the paper will expand its coverage to include lawsuits from St. Clair County, as well. St. Clair County's courts, home of a large medical malpractice docket, have been criticized in the past year by the Belleville News-Democrat for the failure of plaintiffs lawyers to file the required affidavits of merit and for the immense amount of "secrecy" in med mal cases in St. Clair County.

Knight Ridder publishes The Legal Reporter, a legal journal in St. Clair County, but that publication rarely carries any of its own editorial content. Knight Ridder owns the Belleville News-Democrat, as well as six other Metro-East weekly newspapers, and has a Board of Directors filled with representatives of five different national corporations. One could easily pick away at the "threat of media monopoly" or "possible board member conflicts," but it would be unfair and insulting to the great staff at these quality publications. But, just because Brian Timpone has a more partisan background, critics say that we are being plunged back into the "bad old days."

The Madison County Record responds to its critics in an editorial published yesterday. A check of the online poll this morning at the Madison County Record, which is asking "Does the Madison County Record provide balanced news coverage?", shows more than 1225 responses. That is certainly a record number for their online poll, which usually hovers around 100 responses. However, all of the attention is certainly not harming the Record. The thousand-plus new responses to the poll have lifted public opinion with nearly 65 percent of respondents answering that the Record's coverage is balanced. Just short of a landslide.

Objectivity and Disclosure

2004-12-13T15:11:00.000-08:00

One thing is certain in the news business: Objectivity is only secure in the mind of the beholder.

The recent debate involving the US Chamber's part ownership of the Madison County Record is an interesting display of professional (and amateur) journalists' views on objectivity. Last week, the Washington Post "broke" a story about the US Chamber's involvement in the new Madison County newspaper. Since then, several colleagues of the Record - from both print and Internet mediums - have expressed opinions on the relationship.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch weighed in on its new opponent from Edwardsville, saying: "Conflicts of interest - especially a whopper like this one - should always be disclosed." T. Evan Schaeffer, of Notes from the (Legal) Underground, says in a posting yesterday that he hopes the" coverage continues until the Record discloses on its front page that it's nothing but a paid advertisement from tort reformers." Reason Online has posted an opinion on the topic, citing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" as counterpoint in the evolution of liberal interests also mounting untraditional media campaigns.

I enjoy the coverage that the Madison County Record publishes, especially the articles detailing recent lawsuit filings. While disclosure is an important factor in journalistic objectivity, so is balance - and not one of the sources above credited the Record for its outreach to guest editorial writers with differing opinions, including top-of-the-food-chain trial lawyers like Randy Bono and John J. Hopkins. While the paper's editorial and ownership leaning might be evident, the Record has aired opinions from all sides.

I'm pleased to hear a renewed interest from newspapers and lawyers about objectivity and the media. Madison County has its own Michael Moore-like movie crew "covering" the judicial elections and the reform debate - yet there has been no investigation or disclosure as to who is funding the video project? Maybe we should see who is paying the bills for a three person video crew to spend a couple months in Madison County - at least before they hand out their movie to local schools and libraries?

Welcome to ICJL's Blog

2004-12-13T13:07:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the only blog on the Internet devoted to judicial reform and fair courts in Illinois. In the coming weeks and months, the Illinois Civil Justice League will provide you with breaking news, analysis, and detailed information about our state's judicial system.

As always, ICJL is working to stay on the cutting edge of technology. If you have any ideas for additional features on ICJL Blog, please don't hesitate to comment or e-mail us. We will be updating the blog regularly.