   |
Our mission
•To limit expansion of tort liability
•To reduce lawsuit defense costs
•To speed resolution of lawsuits
•To improve fairness & certainty of
civil justice system
Our members
The LRC membership is a broad
coalition of
•Business
•Government entities
•Nonprofit organizations
See our member list of over 70
Washington organizations
Over the last few decades, the plaintiffs’ bar has grown into an organized industry—which the Manhattan Institute calls Trial Lawyers, Inc.—and the trial-lawyer lobby has emerged as a major political force that combines large-scale political giving with K-Street lobbying sophistication.
Although the trial bar’s political clout is well known, a new report released by the Manhattan Institute, Trial Lawyers, Inc.: K Street—A Report on the Litigation Lobby, 2010, the latest edition in its Trial Lawyers, Inc. series, shows that the extent of its influence is greater than even many seasoned political observers realize.
A summary of findings include:
What is the extent of the plaintiffs’ bar political giving to the Democratic Congressional leadership?
- Lawyers have donated $1.05 billion to federal candidates since 1990, including $33 million in contributions from the trial lawyers’ political action committee, the American Association for Justice
- Two of the top five private contributors to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the last campaign were plaintiffs’ law firms
- Plaintiffs’ law firms are four of the top seven contributors to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the top two—and seven of the top twenty—contributors to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
How has the litigation industry parlayed its Congressional clout into an aggressive legislative agenda?
- The first bill signed into law by President Obama made it easier to file discrimination suits by limiting statutes of limitations
- Numerous bills in Congress would eliminate arbitration contracts that encourage resolution of disputes that are too expensive to take to trial—including a defense-contractor amendment that was the first legislative success for Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.)
- Senator Arlen Specter (D-Penn.), whose son Shanin is a major Philadelphia plaintiffs’ lawyer, has introduced a bill giving the plaintiffs’ bar a $1.6 billion tax cut
How is Trial Lawyers, Inc. aggressively pursuing a political agenda at the state level?
- Lawyers have donated $725 million to state political candidates over the last decade
- The litigation lobby is pushing state legislation that would authorize new kinds of lawsuits, weaken limitations on collectible damages, and give private lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state
- Concentrated political giving in states with elected judiciaries has led to an escalating spending race that harms public confidence in judicial impartiality
The LRC’s 2008 Tracking the Trial Lawyers report finds the combined contributions of the 10 regional trial-lawyer political action committees spent nearly $1.5 million for the second consecutive election cycle. This staggering amount pales in comparison to the whopping $7 million contributed by individual lawyers. Because of their ability to raise and spend money on political campaigns, the influence of the trial lawyer lobby now rivals that of the state’s most powerful unions and businesses.
Click here to see the complete report.
Stay informed
Sign up for the free LRC E-News, providing supporters of liability reform with quick, concise reports of the latest state and national liability information. To be added to the distribution list, e-mail LRC Executive Director Dana Childers.
News from the LRC:
- State report reveals enormous liability
- End-of-session wrap-up
- Renewed calls for congressional hearings into "lawsuit industry"
- LRC Judicial Scorecard
State report reveals enormous liability
Recently, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) released a preliminary study on state risk management practices in Washington. The results are alarming, although not surprising. The summary title tells the whole story: Washington Law Provides Much Broader State Government Tort Liability Than Laws in Other States
The report focused on risk management recommendations but doesn’t address the issue of limiting liability for the state. And this is despite the fact that in fiscal year 2009, state taxpayers shelled out $57.3 million for claims made against the state.
It’s also interesting to note that Washington is only one of a handful of states that allow for joint and several liability. Reviewing the comparison chart of Washington versus the other states shows a striking difference. Washington is clearly out-of-step with other states’ liability laws.
Below you’ll find the preliminary report summary. For the complete report, click here. Be sure to check out page 33, which provides a side-by-side comparison of selected states’ liability laws.
State Risk Management Practices in Washington
Preliminary Report
June 23, 2011
REPORT SUMMARY
Washington Law Provides Much Broader State Government Tort Liability Than Laws in Other States
A tort is a legal action brought to recover damages for bodily injury, death or property loss. Originally, the state could not be sued in a tort action. The Legislature did away with this prohibition in 1961 providing that the state could be sued to the same extent as any person or corporation. Because of this change and other state laws, this state has a higher potential for tort payouts than other states.
According to the Office of Financial Management, the state paid $399 million in tort payouts and defense costs in Fiscal Years 2004-2010. In the 2009-2011 Operating Budget (ESHB 1244), the Legislature directed JLARC to review the effect of risk management practices on tort payouts.
Current State Risk Management Structure
This report’s discussion of risk management structure has two parts: the conducting of post-incident reviews, and the provision of general risk management assistance. The current structure is in response to the recommendations of a 2001 task force convened to improve the state’s risk management practices.
In terms of post-incident reviews,
• The Office of Financial Management (OFM) is conducting fewer post-incident reviews than anticipated. A fiscal note for the bill assigning OFM the role of conducting these reviews estimated that OFM would lead 12 reviews per year. In contrast, OFM completed a total of ten reviews over seven years (2003 through 2009).
• State agencies with the highest tort payouts are conducting their own post-incident reviews. These agencies are the departments of Transportation, Corrections, and Social and Health Services (DSHS). Over the past seven years, actions against these three agencies accounted for 75 percent of the state’s total tort payouts.
It took a full 105-day session followed by a 30 special session but the legislature has finally wrapped up its work. And thanks to the good work of the LRC and its allies, no bad liability bills passed this year.
The trial lawyers’ number one priority was to pass a false claims act (FCA), which would allow private citizens to file lawsuits in the name of the state alleging fraud and to collect a bounty from any recovery. These bounty-hunter plaintiffs—often trial lawyers or their clients—would have a financial incentive to push excessive litigation.
It came down to the final hours of the special session, but the LRC managed to kill all FCA measures; two aimed at Medicaid (SB 5458 and SB 5960) and one broader bill (SB 5310).
The federal false claim act serves the state well in fighting fraud and doesn’t require state taxpayers to pay a fee to bounty hunters (which is often 30 percent of the claim!).
It was a big win for the LRC to defeat these bills.
A few other highlights of the bills pushed by the trial lawyers, yet defeated by the LRC include:
- A bill to make changes the consumer protection act by allowing the Attorney General’s office to recover attorneys’ fees but prevailing defendants can only recover the fees if he/she shows the action to be “frivolous.”
- A measure to regulate legal proceedings involving public hazards. It would lower the threshold for the causation of bringing such cases and limits the effectiveness of confidentiality agreements.
Check out the completed bill tracker for an overview of all liability bills.
Congress should investigate lawyers
Renewed calls for hearings into "lawsuit industry"
The president of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) has published a letter to the editor in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Following the most recent news of trial lawyer malfeasance, Tiger Joyce renews ATRA's call to conduct investigative hearings into "the nation's lawsuit industry, [its] outrageous litigation practices and the drag they impose on our economy."
Judicial Scorecard shines a bright light on the Supreme Court
Arguably, amongst the most powerful people in the state of Washington are the members of the Washington Supreme Court. Despite the enormous influence they wield—on everything from death penalty cases to water rights issues—few people know much about these nine justices.
Every two years the LRC produces a thorough review of the significant liability cases decided by the court and provides a synopsis of each case and the justices’ rulings.
The 60-plus members of the LRC are committed to ending lawsuit abuse by working with the state legislature and closely monitoring and highlighting the decisions of the Supreme Court.
This fifth installment of the LRC Judicial Scorecard (PDF) once again shines a bright light on the Supreme Court and how they influence our civil litigation system.