Legal News

What Would an Obama Administration do for the Plaintiffs Bar?

By Dan Slater

(AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)

Some believe that George Bush’s legacy could be found in tort reform. Would an Obama administration eviscerate that legacy? If the trial lawyers bar has its say, the answer is yes, according to the WSJ.

“The impending election portends a perfect storm that will engulf business interests,” said Lester Brickman, the Cardozo law prof. He warned of the “most significant enlargement of tort liability since the 1960s.”

The legal industry’s fund raising for Democratic candidates and political action committees is on pace to exceed the $137 million raised in 2004, as pro-plaintiff groups see a rare political opportunity, notes the Journal. “We’ve been back on our end of the field for too long,” said Ed Mierzwinksi of U.S. PIRG, a consumer-advocacy group. “Now we do have a chance to throw deep.”

The wish-list: limiting companies’ use of federal regulations as a shield from litigation under state law (don’t forget today’s Supreme Court arguments in the big preemption case of Wyeth v. Levine!) and laws to end mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts.

So what are Obama’s intentions with regard to tort reform efforts? In the final presidential debate, Obama touted his independence from trial lawyers, citing his vote to force more class-actions to be filed in federal courts, where juries have shown to be less sympathetic to plaintiffs. But pro-plaintiff groups, reports the Journal, see an ally in Obama, who has offered support for tighter consumer-safety regulations and co-sponsored a bill in August to roll back mandatory arbitration for military-service members and their employers.

“There’s a lot of hope because Obama … should at least understand these issues and their importance in a way a lot of politicians don’t,” said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, a consumer-advocacy group.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on November 03, 2008 (boomark / email).