Doomsday for Mississippi Lawyers: Republicans Take the House
Ya'll Politics is reporting that in yesterday's election Republicans won enough House of Representative races to take the majority in the House. Republicans now control both chambers of the state legislature and the executive branch. This is the realization of the doomsday scenario for Mississippi lawyers that I wrote about in August in this post.
On one hand I have to tip my hat to Republican politicians, who flat-out play the political game better than Democrats. But the results give me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. So much so that I am not going to write much about what this means until I am less upset.
Suffice it to say that more tort reform is likely on the way that will make the 2002 and 2004 reforms look pro-plaintiff. When that happens, many people working in the legal industry in Mississippi will lose their jobs. I'll write more about who and why later. But when some of you who are reading this get laid off in 3 years, you should point back to this election as the cause.
If you are a lawyer working for a firm and your work load is currently low, then you probably will not have a job with your firm in 5 years. Good luck getting a job somewhere else or convincing the bank to loan you the money to start your own practice.
Although I agree that unrestricted political power is generally not a good thing (look what happened in the first two years of the Obama administration) I will not shed a tear for Mississippi's plaintiff attorneys.
I'll enjoy having Republicans controlling things TO A POINT. Although a Libertarian, I tire of the Republicans Christian religiosity, anti-gay, and anti-choice beliefs. I was at Phil Bryant's reception last night and I thought I was in a time warp (1950s). It was old and white, and the music was (also) old and white, and without energy. There was nothing there that would attract me to that party if I were a young careerist of any intelligence who wanted to see Mississippi move into the 21st century.
Perhaps I'll want a change in two years, at which point I'll work to vote them out. I fear the Republicans are going to try to bring anti-choice legislation this year. Again, I'll have to fight this tooth and nail.
Hooray for Mississippians defeating Initiative 26! I'm proud.
More restrictive tort reform will not just impact plaintiff's lawyers. It will impact their staffs, bankers, CPAs, real estate agents, office space leasors, schools and colleges, restaurants, retailers, and the list goes on and on. And what does the average Mississippian get in exchange for the giving away their constitutional rights? Lower healthcare premiums, nope, lower homeowner's premiums, nope, lower care insurance, nope.
More tort reform would be an economic drain on the state, and now is not a good time to kill job creators. Additional tort reform would only benefit corporate interests in general and insurers specifically who will pocket the money and won't reinvest that money into the state. Fact is you cannot demonize and scapegoat one profession in our society and not expect there to be unintended consequences. Be careful what you wish you.
As a former Republican, I didn't vote for a single member of the GOP yesterday except for those running unopposed. This was due to their excessive support for Initiative 26. A lot of my Republican friends voted as I did. We're tired of the government trying to be the morality police.
When I talk about lawyers working at firms I am talking about defense lawyers.
Defense law is a much bigger industry than plaintiff law. A lot more jobs will be lost on the defense side than on the plaintiff side. The fact that many defense lawyers ignore this reality is a curious form of willfull blindness.
Dr. Matthias, would you care to weigh in on RandomThoughts' post re lower healthcare premiums? Since you're a medical professional, have you seen your premiums reduced since the 2002 and 2004 reforms? Have you noticed any other "benefits" of tort reform in your industry?
I'd like to hear your thoughts / experiences on that issue.
Matt: if you look at my comment you will see I was referring to healthcare premiums not malpractice premiums. I have not seen any study that says a person's health insurance premiums dropped after tort reform measures were instituted. Which is my point, the average Mississippian gave up alot with 2002 and 2004 reforms and got nothing in return.
I have never understood tort reform in Mississippi, but for a few Plaintiff venues where verdicts were being awarded that were not supported by the evidence. The practice of law is broken; it is becoming less and less of a profession (and more of a business) and the current business models are not sustainable in this economy and in the foreseeable future.
I am not sure the election results, even if the republicans did not pull off a sweep, would alter the inevitable path of a dying profession. I hate to be foreboding, but that is the way I see it.
Though a member of the bar (non-practicing), I have been in business in this state since 1975. At one time, I employed over 150 people in five businesses. I was there as we became a haven for jackpot justice and unbridled litigation and also when tort reform came. I was on several occasions the target of absolutely baseless law suits and suffered greatly from the insurance premiums resulting therefrom and from the "environment" created by those type lawsuits. Since tort reform, my insurance premiums have dropped precipitously. This is not hearsay, I pay the damn premiums and I'm talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Lamenting that there will be unemployment because a legalized form of thievery is no longer possible fails to move my sympathetic side. Perhaps these people can find work that actually furthers the human experience and productivity of this state. At any rate, I'm really pretty damn short on tears.
"I was on several occasions the target of absolutely baseless law suits"
What tort reform measure, exactly, prevents your being the target of baseless suits?
Anderson,
I don't know about in the past, but I'm sure that a future tort reform measure will include the appointment of Special Gaulieter who can summarily sentence people who file "frivilous" lawsuits to work detail on the construction of Phil Bryant's NASCAR track. The definition of frivolous will be up for debate, but they are leaning for defining it as any lawsuit where the defendant does not admit liability.
"we became a haven for jackpot justice"
In the future, please refrain from using phrases such as "jackpot justice." No one will take your comments seriously when you interject Chamber of Commerce sponsored buzzwords to describe conditions that weren't / aren't supported by empirical evidence.
RandomThoughts: I did read your post. Your clarification notwithstanding, I'd still like to get Dr. Matthias' view of malpractice premiums.
No offense but who cares what H.M. has to say? Her response will only tow the typical anti-Plaintiff's lawyer line. I remember her getting all bent out of shape a few years ago when Ogden was running against her beloved Swan Yerger. H.M. will have no useful, unbiased comments to offer on the matter.
My guess is that the new tort reform push will be some form of loser pays.
Hey John,
You didn't mention if you ever had to sue anyone yourself. I am positive that you didn't think the lawsuits you filed were frivolous but the person you sued did. Anyway, I hope you are smart enought to understand that whether or not a suit is frivolous depends on which side of the "v" you are on.
Also, regarding loser pays, you better hang on to your hat because it's going to be a wild ride. When it passes, I am going to stop settling my slam dunk cases so I can get attorneys fees thrown in after I win. Like they say, when life gives you lemonade, screw 'em in the ear.
"My guess is that the new tort reform push will be some form of loser pays."
I think that in practice, that will work out to "loser declares bankruptcy."
... Also, curious if any U.S. jurisdiction has tried loser-pays before. It's not immediate obvious whether or not it would be constitutional.
I don't know why "loser pays" might be unconstitutional. The Legislature could just define "costs" so as to include the winner's attorney's fees.
Hey, Lil Enos,
In 35 years of business, I filed one lawsuit, an imminent domain action. According to the Supreme Court, it was anything but frivolous. In the end, a procrastinating attorney allowed it to languish to the point that I said the hell with it.
Feel better now?
jgreen
Phil Bryant has gone on record as saying that he's very interested in the "loser pays" legislation that Texas recently enacted. If you want to see what's likely coming, take a look at that. Personally, I don't think it's a "doomsday" scenario, but I haven't studied it thoroughly.
One glimmer of hope for us is the obvious conflict between Bryant and Reeves. Those two do not like each other at all. I don't necessarily believe it, but I have heard that Tate intends to spend the next four years capitalizing on Phil's mistakes and trying to make him look like a total buffoon for a challenge for the governor's office in 2015. This would be senseless, but several politicos believe this to be the case. Now that Phil has pissed off a lot of voters by comparing those of us who voted "No" on Initiative 26 to Nazis and calling us minions of Satan, it seems more plausible. He's not a smart man, folks. If Tate does indeed have these ambitions, there could be some gridlock over at the legislature hindering Phil's further tort reform efforts.
I am a nonlawyer who has enjoyed this blog since a lawyer friend pointed it out. I understand that some European countries have "loser pays", and that as a consequence there are practically no lawsuits. Does anyone know about this? Does the government step up with regulation? Are consumers just screwed? How does it work?
I am a bit puzzled how "loser pays" would be much help to its supposed beneficiaries.
Most individual plaintiffs stuck with a huge attorney bill would simply declare bankruptcy.
It's the solvent plaintiffs who have something to fear -- companies and corporations in particular. Look for their insurance premiums to go *up* under such "tort reform" ... unless the policies exclude such coverage?
Or is the idea is to make the plaintiff's attorney jointly liable for the fees? I think both sides of the Bar would unite against that.
The plaintiff;s lawyers are personally liable for the debt,as I read the Texas version. All this even though president of Mississippi Medical Association says they need no more tort reform. Do you want to know how bad it is for defense firms now. many associates on the Coast are now being forced to do federal public defender work. Thank God civilation is ending in about eleven months. At least Big Pharma and the Chamber is will be gone.