Juries: ‘Democracy in Action’ (Mega-hurl ambulance chaser alert)

Newsweak ^ | December 15, 2003 | Senator John Edwards

[eartotheground]

The civil jury system, John Edwards argues, is good for America. He ought to know. A veteran trial lawyer on a case that confirmed his belief in the true meaning of justice Edwards, a former trial lawyer, says lawsuits deliver justice to average Americans By Sen. John Edwards NewsweekDec. 15 issue - I’ll never forget the first time I met Jennifer Campbell. A charming, determined 5-year-old, she couldn’t walk or feed herself, and still needed a playpen. Because of a doctor’s terrible mistake, she was born with permanent brain damage. I met her loving, determined parents, who were hoping for a way to help pay for her costly care, and to make sure other families wouldn’t suffer as they had.

advertisement

Back then, in 1985, I was a young North Carolina lawyer starting to build a name as someone willing to take cases others rejected as long shots. This case was exactly that. The insurance companies were skilled at making cases like this “go away.” The Campbells had no money, and the trial would be long, complicated and expensive. If we lost, neither the Campbells nor I would receive a dime.

But there was no question that these were risks worth taking for Jennifer. The other side was counting on the Campbells to walk away intimidated, but they were wrong. A jury eventually agreed, and awarded the Campbells enough to make sure Jennifer’s parents would never have to worry about her care.

These days it’s fashionable for people to complain that the courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits, and to dismiss the legal profession as a bastion of greed. In a nation as large as ours, it isn’t difficult to find an outrageous case here and there. They draw publicity, and it’s easy to come away with the impression that the court system is hopelessly broken.

I can tell you from long experience that it is not. Before I was elected to the United States Senate, I spent nearly two decades as a lawyer standing up for people who needed a voice. During that time, I worked on hundreds of cases, big and small. I’m proud of the work I did, and the people I represented. There was nothing frivolous about the families who came to me for help. Like the Campbells, many were in very difficult places in their lives. Often, they found themselves up against powerful opposition—insurance companies, large corporations—who had armies of lawyers to represent them. Giving them a chance for justice was very important to me. I was more than just their lawyer. I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.

And that’s what good lawyers—I would say most lawyers—do for their clients all the time. I am a strong believer in the courts as a place for ordinary people to be heard, often when other institutions have failed them. People have criticized the jury system, saying jurors can’t be trusted to consider the facts. I couldn’t disagree more. Juries are a vital example of democracy in action. The people who sit on juries are the same people who decide who the president should be. People who are entrusted to choose the leader of the free world are capable of weighing evidence in a courtroom—and they do, every day across America. I found again and again that they take their service seriously, and follow the law even when the law is at odds with what they personally believe.

That’s not to say the system is perfect. Frivolous lawsuits waste good people’s time and hurt the real victims. That’s why I have proposed to prevent them: Lawyers in medical-malpractice lawsuits, for example, should have to bring their cases to independent experts who certify that the complaints have merit before they are filed. And lawyers who bring frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions, with a “three strikes” penalty.

The solution isn’t to restrict access to the courts, or to cap awards. Those steps wouldn’t stop the bad cases. They would leave modest families like the Campbells struggling to pay for the negligence of others.

But it isn’t just about money. Lawsuits often have results that reach well beyond the courtroom. Just one example of many: because of the Campbells’ case, hospitals in North Carolina began changing their procedures to make sure the kind of mistakes that injured Jennifer were less likely to happen again. By any measure, you can certainly call that justice.

Edwards, U.S. senator for North Carolina and a Democratic candidate for president, practiced law for nearly 20 years.

[eartotheground]

Newsweak was too spineless to publish my rebuttal letter so have at it folks

[Callahan]

I think the solution is to lower the standard for a legal malpractice suit against your own attorney. Once the bloodsuckers start going after eachother, they'll forget about the rest of us.

[Steve_Seattle]

Was this a paid ad by the Edwards campaign, or a Newsweek story?

[beelzepug]

"...they take their service seriously, and follow the law even when the law is at odds with what they personally believe."

Wrong! See www.fija.org - a lot of good info there for jurors even though it is a very liberal site.

[Spok]

It's seems like the tort system is usually defended those who have, incidently, gotten filthy rich from it. Coincidence?

[eartotheground]

A newsweak "article" as if there is any difference. Where it says advertisement is my mistake I forgot to delete the advertisement HTML.

[Steve_Seattle]

I think there might be some significance to the appearance of this pro-Edwards puff-piece at this particular time. Saddam's arrest was a blow to the Dean campaign, and it could be that sensitive pro-Democrat media-types are thinking this might be the time to promote a Dean-alternative such as the photogenic Edwards, who's basically supported the war and has the Southern-charm - without the extreme sleaze - that worked for Clinton. Watch the media and see if Edwards doesn't suddenly start attracting a lot of favorable attention. Just a theory . . .

[bourbon]

What a load of self-important, sanctimonious claptrap.
(gag...choke....BARF!!!)

[bourbon]

Interesting theory.... let's hope Dean's rabid supporters can overcome any attempts at media manipulation of the race for the Dem. nomination.

[eartotheground]

Here's the letter I foolishly thought I could get published in Newsweak:


Subject: "juries are democracy in action"


I can't let Senator Edwards' comments on the civil litigation crisis go unanswered. "I’ll never forget the first time I met Jennifer Campbell. A charming, determined 5-year-old, she couldn’t walk or feed herself, and still needed a playpen. Because of a doctor’s terrible mistake, she was born with permanent brain damage."

Does Edwards remember what the "doctor's terrible mistake" was? How does Edwards know it was a "terrible mistake"; I thought Dean was the only physician running for president. Most obstetricians in my home state of Florida have been sued. I guess they make "terrible mistakes" all the time.


"The insurance companies were skilled at making cases like this 'go away.' The Campbells had no money, and the trial would be long, complicated and expensive." So, who cares if the jury decides $4million or so will demonstrate "democracy in action". Insurance pays for it! Insurance is just a magic black box that people can just pull money out of, isn't it?

"If we lost, neither the Campbells nor I would receive a dime". They wouldn't have had to pay a dime either. Why not throw the dice when there is no risk of losing, and the payoff could be in the millions.

Does Edwards remember what his take was? 40%? 57%? Why not give the "charming, determined 5-year-old" 100%?

When people complain about the high cost of medical care, they need look no farther than parasites like Edwards sucking money out of the system like hogs at a feeding trough. Would-be "President Edwards" (god forbid) first crisis will be to figure out how to replace all the doctors that have retired.