It would be very, very horrifying to Trial Lawyers if Bush were Elected

Politics/Elections News Source: New York Times Published: March 23, 2000 Author: LESLIE WAYNE Posted on 03/25/2000 18:57:48 PST by harry palmer

Trial Lawyers Pour Money Into Democrats' Chests ow that they have triumphed over the tobacco industry, trial lawyers have found a new target, Gov. George W. Bush, and they have been spending huge amounts of money from the tobacco settlement to keep him and other Republicans from being elected.

To trial lawyers, especially those involved in the tobacco litigation, Mr. Bush has become their worst nightmare. He has made attacks on lawyers a campaign centerpiece, pointing with pride to his record in Texas of curbing civil litigation, capping legal fees and limiting jury awards.

It has all been under the banner of tort reform, or what Mr. Bush said were efforts to rid the legal system of junk lawsuits.

The lawyers who have specialized in bringing civil lawsuits, however, saw Mr. Bush's statements not only as a threat to their livelihood, but also to their ability to hold corporate America legally accountable for its actions.

To that end, while trial lawyers have long been heavy Democratic Party donors, the prospect of a Bush candidacy, along with the possibility that like-minded Republicans would retain control of Congress, has ratcheted up the stakes, and the donations.

"It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected," said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation, who has given over $70,000 to the Democrats. "To combat that, we want to make sure we have a Democratic president, House and Senate. There is some serious tobacco money being spread around."

Moreover, with the lawyers' fees in the tobacco settlement running into the hundreds of millions, even billions, many of those trial lawyers have had a lot more to donate this election cycle. More than a half-dozen law firms involved in the tobacco settlement have each given the Democratic Party more than $100,000 in the unlimited, unregulated donations known as soft money, some writing checks as large as $400,000.

Three law firms involved in the Texas tobacco case -- Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole, Williams Bailey, and Nix Patterson & Roach -- accounted for $1.135 million in soft money donations to the Democrats.

One of the biggest Democratic donors has been Peter G. Angelos, the lawyer who represented the state of Maryland in the tobacco litigation and who gave $400,000. "I will do whatever necessary to see that candidates who espouse the position that Bush does are defeated at the polls," said Mr. Angelos, also the owner of the Baltimore Orioles.

Over all, trial lawyers raised $2.7 million in soft money donations for Democrats in 1999, of a total of $49.4 million in soft dollars raised so far by the party, according to a recent report from Common Cause, a Washington nonprofit group. (By contrast, the Republicans got $2,800 in soft money from trial lawyers, Common Cause reported, of $57.8 million in soft dollars over all.)

The Democratic haul was more than double the $1.12 million in soft money donations from trial lawyers in 1995, the year prior to the last presidential race. And, the largest portion of the 1999 money, $1.65 million, went to a Democratic Party committee supporting Congressional candidates, reflecting the view of many trial lawyers that a Democratically controlled House could halt tort reform.

While money from trial lawyers has gone to all kinds of Democratic committees, the lawyers have made it clear that their No. 1 target was Mr. Bush. Last month, Mr. Bush issued a five-point plan to "curb frivolous lawsuits" and said he wanted to expand nationwide efforts that he had pushed in Texas that he said had saved Texas businesses $3 billion by reducing civil litigation.

"For trial lawyers, the stakes are enormous beyond calculation this year because the potential is there for tort reform to move from the extreme back burner right up to the front depending on how a couple of elections go," said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington nonprofit group advocating campaign finance reform.

"If you had Bush in the White House and a Republican House, bingo, tort reform would go to the top of the agenda," Mr. Makinson said. "And the tobacco settlement has been the pot of gold that has enabled trial lawyers to suddenly have lots of capital behind them."

For its part, corporate America has generally been behind Mr. Bush. Haunted by the vision of how civil litigation over tobacco, started by a handful of lawyers, brought some of America's largest consumer products companies to their knees, corporate America has concluded that a Bush presidency would be its best defense.

Mr. Bush's $70 million campaign war chest was financed, in large part, with donations from rich individuals and corporate interests, the same interests that trial lawyers have challenged in court. As a result, a financial version of the arms race has broken out. The more the Bush campaign and the Republican Party in general raised from business, the more trial lawyers said they must raise, and vice versa.

Corporations like the Philip Morris Companies, A.T. & T. and United Parcel Service were the biggest contributors to the Republican Party, while Mr. Bush's top donors were drawn from Enron Corporation, SkyTel Communications and the Chemical Manufacturers Association.

Still, while trial lawyers have been focused mainly on one issue, defeating tort reform and Mr. Bush, corporate America has been donating to Republicans to advance any number of business issues. Big business donors like the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and many large corporations gave to Republicans for many reasons, tort reform being only one.

"We don't have the kind of target operation that trial lawyers do," said Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association, a Washington lobbying group. "When business makes donations, they do to those who support a whole multiplicity of issues. Our members are not single issue people."

Nonetheless, the American Tort Reform Foundation, a branch of the lobbying group, has set up a Web site, www.triallawyermoney.org, to follow trial lawyer donations called "Tracking Trial Lawyers." The group has listed the biggest trial lawyer donors as well as the biggest recipients of their largess -- basically a list of Democratic Party committees and candidates.

In addition to soft money donations, which could be given to political parties in unlimited amounts, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America Political Action Committee has already made $658,000 in donations directly to individual Democratic candidates and to party committees. This political action committee, with its own fund-raising now in full swing, has been one of the largest in each campaign cycle -- in the 1996 election it raised $5.1 million.

Moreover, one prominent trial lawyer, Michael V. Ciresi of Minneapolis, who represented the state of Minnesota in the tobacco litigation, was running for the United States Senate in the Democratic primary there. Mr. Ciresi declined to be interviewed.

Of course, the animosity between trial lawyers and Mr. Bush went back further than Mr. Bush's candidacy, extending to his father. Many remembered President George Bush's derision of trial lawyers in their "tasseled loafers" during the 1992 campaign, and the words still smarted.

"The Bushes and lawyers have been at odds for years," said Russ M. Herman, a Louisiana lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation.

This year, though, the ill will has peaked. Trial lawyers have been gearing up for new battles in Congress to pass a patients' bill of rights and in the courts against health maintenance organizations and the gun industry.

"What's different this time around," said Michael Hotra, vice president of the American Tort Reform Foundation, "is that everyone recognizes that the stakes are higher. We have a candidate who is making legal reform a core issue and we certainly applaud Bush for that."

As for the Web site, Mr. Hotra said that the group had set it up "to emphasize that money won in lawsuits is being strategically reinvested by plaintiffs lawyers in the political process and in more litigation."

And money is what it is all about. "When it comes to political action, corporate America was the pioneer in spending money on campaigns," said Stanley M. Chesley, a Cincinnati lawyer whose firm gave the Democrats $122,500. "They make trial lawyers look like Mickey Mouse. So trial lawyers are attempting not only to catch up, but to be a copy cat. If Bush can raise $70 million, the question is, 'How can you compete?' And there is only one way and that is to raise that kind of money."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It would be very, very horrifying to trial lawyers if Bush were elected," said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the tobacco litigation, who has given over $70,000 to the Democrats. "To combat that, we want to make sure we have a Democratic president, House and Senate. There is some serious tobacco money being spread around." I searched using the actual title for this article and it hasn't been posted before.

1 Posted on 03/25/2000 18:57:48 PST by harry palmer [ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]

Actually I'm glad you responded, especially since you have once been part of the vermin class.

Actually, it seems that the problem is not so much with the lawyers, but the jurors who make the decisions. Even if the runaway jury is only 10% correct in how jurors in big cases are chosen, we got a glimspe of what goes on behind the scenes in such instances. Ever part of something like that?

I recently was in the jury pool for a capital case in my county. I was profiled and dosiered by both the defense and the prosecution. I saw the computer printouts on each prospective juror in addition to the 100 + questions I answered. Each print out had us scored as to whether we were going to be hostile to the prosecution or the defense. I btw got bounced during voire dire by the defense.

Every judge in a trial attorney situation has the ability to rule that one party or the other has not enough to go forward. Even conservative judges more often than not don't stop meaningless cases.

So you see, I don't blame trial lawyers. I blame how lawyers from both sides attempt to manipulate the jury in favor of their client, irregardless of the truth.

What say you counselor?

Even if the runaway jury is only 10% correct in how jurors in big cases are chosen, we got a glimspe of what goes on behind the scenes in such instances. Ever part of something like that?

Stop watching TV.

Of course both sides try to find jurors who, based solely on the information elicited, might be predisposed to lean a certain way. It is all a guess. (this process is controlled by individual states, and in many cases ultimate latitude is given to trial judge)

A lawyer who does not do what he or she can to determine the the leanings of the people to whom he or she is trying a case is a lawyer who commits malpractice.

The process of trying a case is not "jury manipulation." The facts are the facts, the ruling of the judge determines the admissibility of evidence. Thus, the most critical rulings are made when a judge determines what evidence will be seen or heard. Over that, lawyers have little control. (e.g. the judge in the Bryant case just permitted some limited use at trial of the alleged victim's sexual history. Had he allowed none, or had he allowed all, would likely have different affects on a jury.)

Once the evidence is in, it is the job of counsel on both sides present that evidence in the light most favorable to their clients. Indeed, I have seen cases won and lost not because of the evidence, but because certain witnesses did poorly on the stand, or were deemed not credible.

In the end, juries make the decisions on the facts presented. It is their job to assess the facts and evidence, and more importantly, to establish the credibility of witnesses who testify. It is not a small responsibility. And, they are instructed with jury instructions guiding them in their responsibilities. (In some jurisdictions, the instructions of law to the jury go back to the deliberation room with the jury.)

Juries reach results for many different reasons. Often, they disregard instructions, and reach compromise verdicts. Sometimes, one may try a case focusing the entire case on certain witnesses and certain facts, only to find out that the jury thought something else was important. And, it is also true, that there is simply no accounting for jury room deliberation dynamics, a mystery to many. But strong and smart jury members can dominate a deliberation.

In the end, no matter what we do up there, it is not the lawyers who decide these cases -- it is juries. (No matter how many times you instruct a jury that its rulings must not be based on bias and sympathy, they are. Why, because we all have biases and sympathies.)

With this, I would agree. No one should be able to get out of jury duty. I am concerned that the pools of jurors are weak because so many people are let out of jury duty for work reasons.

In the end, however, most jurisdictions allow only a few peremptory strikes. (Striking a juror for no reason at all) Where I practice, we sit civil panels of 13, and each side may strike 3 for any reason or no reason. If you want to get rid of someone else, it must be for cause. (determined by the Court from some bias elicited during voir dire.) We don't do surveys, and the only information we get on jurors is name, age, occupation, and address. While the practice is to get that info the Friday before a case begins, more often than not we will receive it the morning of the trial. Unlike Grisham movies, there is little to be done with such information in a short time.

Admittedly, some jurisdictions go crazy on this stuff. (Can anyone say California). The judge for whom I clerked always said, we would have tried OJ in five days.

I will leave you with this, just so you don't think lawyers control the system everywhere. I saw this happen.

When Marv Albert was tried in Virginia, he hired Roy Black, who in turn hired a "local counsel." (Often hire rollers will use locals to understand local rules and practice.) Apparently, Mr. Black didn't do much consultation with local counsel.

In a pre-trial hearing to set the trial calendar and resolve some pre-trial motions. Mr. Black addressed the Court and said, "Judge, I have good news. I think we can pick this jury in two weeks, and I think we can try this case in 6 weeks."

The Judge, a former defense attorney and hard-nosed local judge looked down and said, "Mr. Black, I think we can pick this jury in two hours, and try this case in 3 days. Welcome to the Commonwealth"

Marv took a plea agreement three days into the trial.

Everytime I get on the bandwagon for tort reform, something like this comes out. BTW, I know this happens frequently. Add to the above, my employer eschews honesty and integrity, sustainable development and all the new catch phrases, they still when it comes to product stewardship. Well, BS. They will attempt to destroy anyone who comes forward with information regarding their shortcomings. Financially, legally, employment future and on and on. Anyway, here's the latest:

The maker of a billion-dollar antipsychotic medication has acknowledged misleading doctors and other healthcare providers about the safety of its product, minimizing potentially deadly side effects.

The drug, Risperdal, has been commonly prescribed to Florida children in state care, including to a handful of boys who developed lactating breasts after taking it.

On Wednesday, drug maker Janssen Pharmaceutica wrote a two-page letter to doctors, warning them that the company, in promotional material, had ''minimized potentially fatal risks, and made misleading claims'' that the medication was more safe in treating mental illness than other drugs in the same category.

Most physicians received the letter Friday.

Risperdal is the leading drug used to combat schizophrenia and other types of psychotic disorders, earning Janssen about $2.1 billion in annual sales. The drug was first marketed about eight years ago, and is prescribed to more than 10 million people worldwide.

The ''important correction of drug information'' came shortly after federal regulators had accused Janssen of ''disseminating'' advertising and marketing material that was ``false or misleading.''

A letter from Janssen to doctors, dated Nov. 10, 2003, claimed Risperdal did not increase the risk of diabetes among consumers compared with other similar drugs, called neuroleptics or antipsychotics.

But an April 2004 letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to Janssen asserts quite the contrary. Research indicated ''an increased risk of hyperglycemia-related adverse effects and diabetes with Risperdal,'' the letter stated.

A TROUBLED HISTORY

In 2001, The Herald published a series of stories about the common use of Risperdal among children in state care. Child-welfare advocates said the drug routinely was being used by foster care providers as a ''chemical restraint'' on children whose unruly behavior was a frustration to caretakers.

''I had clients who were displaying severe side effects, and I tried to alert the Department of Children & Families both as to the local problem and the growing national concern about a range of psychotropic medications, Risperdal and other antipsychotics in particular,'' said Coral Springs attorney and children's advocate Andrea Moore.

''They listened, but they did not hear me,'' Moore added.

Broward Circuit Judge John A. Frusciante, who must approve requests from doctors before they can prescribe mind-altering drugs to children whose cases he oversees, said Risperdal continues to be used frequently by doctors who treat children in state care.

''It is not uncommon,'' Frusciante said.

''This whole psychotropic drug issue is a problem for us,'' Frusciante said. ``It's a very scary area to be in, because we know medication can be a tremendous help for a number of children. But we also know that there are risks to the children who are taking these medications.''

Friday, DCF officials told The Herald they would review the new material and ask doctors who care for foster children to re-evaluate their medication options.

''We will make this information available to all our districts, program supervisors, community-based care agencies and partners,'' said DCF spokesman Bill Spann. ``In addition, we will provide this information to all the physicians who care for the children in foster care, and ask them to review the cases of any children who are on the drug.

''We will ask them to take the appropriate action,'' Spann said.

ONE IN THREE TREATED

The state Agency for Health Care Administration, which pays the drug bill for most children in state care, as well as needy children who are insured by Medicaid, could not say Friday how many Florida Medicaid recipients are being administered the drug.

In 2001, after The Herald's series, DCF reviewed the records of most foster children. Records showed about about one in three foster children taking a powerful mood-altering drug. Many were taking untested combinations, or ''cocktails,'' of the drugs.

Infants and toddlers were being given psychiatric drugs, according to a 2003 study by the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council.

Antoinette R. Appel, a Plantation neuropsychologist, studied the records of about 50 South Florida foster children who had been prescribed Risperdal.

She said many of the children developed severe side-effects, including obesity, lethargy, lack of concentration, hormonal disorders and the inappropriate development of secondary sexual characteristics, such as lactating breasts in boys or young girls.

Carolyn Salisbury, associate director of the University of Miami's Children & Youth Law Clinic, has pleaded with child welfare authorities for about five years to curtail the widespread use of mood-altering drugs among foster kids, who often complain the drugs make them more ill.

VICTORY IN COURT

One of the clinic's most high-profile clients, identified in court papers as M.W., won a Florida Supreme Court ruling that child welfare authorities cannot lock up foster kids in psychiatric hospitals without a hearing. M.W. had developed lactating breasts after doctors forced him to take Risperdal, court records show.

One of Salisbury's clients, a 15-year-old girl, begged her to prevent the child welfare agency from forcing her to take Risperdal, Salisbury said. The girl had become obese and suffered from dramatic mood swings, alternating between feeling agitated or very depressed.

''I always object to my foster child clients being placed on Risperdal . . .,'' Salisbury said. ``However, DCF continues to place children in their care on the drug, even though DCF knows full well the horrible side effects foster children continue to suffer on this drug.''

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.