Here’s some good news in what is something of a sleeper. Measure 51, a one-sided and unnecessary ballot measure that would limit consumers rights failed to qualify for the November ballot.  The measure would have limited attorney fees to 10 percent in most contingent fee cases.

Contingent fees are those paid as a percentage of what a lawyer recovers for an injured person.  They are an equalizer. While the wealthy and big businesses can afford to pay lawyers by the hour, the rest of us don’t have the means to do so. The contingent fee system levels the playing field, allowing middle income Oregonians and small businesses the ability to hire skilled lawyers who will work for a percentage of what they obtain for the client.

The measure limited only contingent fees; it didn’t limit what those who afford to pay by the hour could pay. Had it passed, the measure would have limited consumers’ access to the best legal talent by artificially limiting fees.

My son–a somewhat sardonic 18 year old–saw through it immediately. “Wouldn’t limiting fees actually encourage lawyers to file more frivolous lawsuits?” (He’s  smarter than his dad; I never thought of that…thanks kiddo, you’re doing the old gray fart proud.)

Here’s the thing. At bottom the one-sided measure would favor insurance companies, HMOs, and manufacturers of dangerous products. They don’t want consumers to have access to the courts. They know that the best way to close the courthouse doors is to make sure that injured consumers can’t afford to hire lawyers. This, by the way, is part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda. And as with many other things they failed.

Thankfully, Oregon consumers knew better. We’ve come to realize that the initiative process is one that is used by special interests to advance a radical agenda. It’s getting harder to qualify measures, and Oregonians are getting more skeptical about the unintended consequences of poorly drafted initiatives.

That’s great news.

David Sugerman

The Center for Justice and Democracy compiles fact sheets on a number of civil litigation topics, including case filings, litigation expenses, lawyer fees and the like.

Here’s a nice annotated summary from the Civil for Justice and Democracy of the myths connected with the civil justice system:

http://centerjd.org/MB_2007civil.htm

Two of my favorites:

1) The “frivolous lawsuit malpractice crisis” is shown to be a myth.

From an article in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“A recent Harvard School of Public Health study that closely examined 1452 closed claims concluded that ‘[p]ortraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.’[fn4] The study found that most injuries resulting in claims were caused by medical error, and that those that weren’t were, nevertheless, not “frivolous” claims. [fn5]”

Source: David M. Studdert, Michelle Mello, et al., “Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation,” New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2006.

2) And then there’s the tidal wave of litigation that is overrunning our courts because too many injured people file lawsuits:

“The number of tort trials concluded in U.S. District Courts declined by 80 percent from 1985 to 2003.”

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, “Civil Justice Statistics,” found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm

There are all sorts of other topics covered in the CJD reports. If the general importance of the civil justice system matters to you, you might want to peruse their website, www.centerjd.org

David F. Sugerman