In its first report, The Golden State Action Plan, the Chamber highlights small businesses "suffocating under excessive regulations, high taxes, and lawsuit abuse." Part of its four-step plan to increase California's economic competitiveness and make the state fiscally sound includes "®eforming the legal system so that it punishes actual wrongdoing, without punishing businesses that are playing by the rules."

You can read the full report here.

A 2006 graduate of the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Pettibone has served since March 2008 as a Senior Legislative Analyst in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. While at McGeorge she won the Witkins Award for Academic Excellence in Immigration Law and worked in the Governor’s Legal Affairs Office.

She is a 1996 graduate of the University of Miami, where she earned a Bachelor of Science in biological services with a minor in marine science. She took a leave of absence to compete in the 1995 America’s Cup as a member of its first all-women’s racing team.

As a professional sailor, Pettibone participated in America’s Cup campaigns in Spain, New Zealand, and San Diego. She also served an as associate legal advisor to team members and management and to a multinational organization reviewing racing rules and event protocols.

Pettibone also participated in two Around the World Ocean Racing Challenges, in 1997-98 and 2001-02. She succeeds Kim Stone as CJAC's legislative advocate.

And the costs are only expected to rise in the future. NERA Economic Consulting -- who conducted the study for ILR -- forecasts that by 2011, small businesses, including small medical businesses, will be paying $152 billion in tort costs.

You can read the full report here.

In its plan to make offshore oil drilling safer (“Senate should act on lax drilling practices,” Aug. 4), Congress should delete the lawyer-driven scheme to eliminate the damage liability cap it established in 1990. Destroying the cap would inspire lawsuits that would direct millions of dollars away from people whose livelihood was disrupted by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Instead, the money would go into the pockets of plaintiffs’ lawyers. The cost risks of future drilling would increase because with no liability limit, smaller independent oil producers may find that insurance to cover accidents is unaffordable.

Note that BP has so far paid out - without lawyers taking their usual massive cut - $277 million in claims payments in more than 93,000 checks to individuals and small businesses. Compare that with the litigation option, which takes years to get money to anyone and carries huge overhead costs.

Lawsuits have a place, when complicated fault and damage questions have to be answered.

But in this situation, the claim fund BP put together in consultation with President Obama is getting more money to more people faster and easier. Eliminating the long-standing liability cap is unnecessary now and would cause problems later.

John H. Sullivan
President, Civil Justice Association of California

July 26, 2010

“By disregarding the firm advice of California’s district attorneys and not learning from ongoing lessons in other states, the California Supreme Court may have set our state’s civil justice system on path to a new brand of wasteful, confusing, and perhaps extortionate litigation.

“For a worst-case scenario, one can recall how famous Southern plaintiffs’ lawyer Dickie Scruggs, now in federal prison, early in his career helped get Mississippi law changed to allow him to partner with the state’s attorney general in contingency fee lawsuits. What eventually followed were campaign contributions that determined the outcome of judicial elections and then outright bribes to judges.

“The California District Attorneys Association, in a powerful amicus brief filed last year in this case, virtually condemned the practice of prosecutors hiring contingency fee lawyers to do the public’s business. In their brief, district attorneys observed that:

It would be contrary to human nature to believe that the positions taken by the contingent fee attorneys ... are completely unaffected by the direct, personal, and substantial pecuniary interest they, and they alone on the plaintiffs’ team, have gambled on a successful outcome of this litigation. Their economic interests color everything they do in connection with this litigation.’

"And the district attorneys see conflict reaching public lawyers as well:

‘It would be illogical to suggest that the contingent fee outside counsel who have been hired because of the competence, experience, expertise, and their financial resources, have not placed themselves in positions where they are able to exercise substantial influence over the decisions made by the government.....It would be similarly be illogical and contrary to human nature to suggest that the government attorneys have not put themselves in a position where ... they have painted themselves into an ethical corner.’

“Also noteworthy is the District Attorney association brief’s comments on claims that economic necessity requires allowing public agency contingency fee hiring:

‘[The] rule prohibiting contingent fee attorneys...cannot be trumped by claims of public entity poverty. Fundamental prosecutorial ethical rules cannot be subordinated to mere fiscal considerations’

“We can only hope that our state’s district attorneys and attorney general - even though losing the court’s support - will maintain a principled tradition of independent integrity which has distinguished the vast majority of them over the years and caused them to avoid contingency fee hiring.

“The Supreme Court’s ‘specific guideline’ for permissible contingent-fee agreements are sweet hypothetically but sour in the face of reality. How is any objective observer to know whether ‘oversight’ requirements such as ‘public entity lawyer control…veto power’ either exist in a contingency fee agreement or are being met in practice?

“For a reality check, one need look no farther than Orange County where a deal between the district attorney and contingency fee lawyers was making a mockery of this decision before its ink dried. Last March 12 District Attorney Tony Rackauckas announced a ‘contingency fee’ agreement with an Orange County-based law firm to sue Toyota. Despite media and private citizen requests, that agreement has not been made public. A county attorney has opined that it is privileged as attorney-client communication.

“Nationally, contingency fee attorney hiring by public prosecutors has earned the name ‘pay to play’ because the lawyer hiring is often preceded by campaign contributions to the hiring attorney general. For example:

• In 2009 in Pennsylvania, a governor’s Office of General Counsel’s suit against a pharmaceutical company was handled by a Texas law firm whose founding partner had directly contributed more than $160,000 to the governor’s re-election campaign. (Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009, Houston Chronicle, April 26, 2009)

• In New Mexico, both the current and former attorney generals received large contributions from the Texas firm partner above. The first initiated a litigation contract with the firm and the second extended it. (Wall Street Journal, April 28, 2009)

• State officials in New York received more than $1 million in contributions from trial lawyers, who then won $518 million in class action suits on behalf of the state pension fund. (NY Daily News, Oct 8, 2009)

• South Carolina’s attorney general awarded a no-bid contract to a law firm - and refused to release details for nearly a year - and received a total of $60,000 in contributions from lawyers and family members. (Wall Street Journal, Oct 1, 2009)

“Noteworthy in today’s opinion is the court’s distinguishing the Santa Clara defendants, large national manufacturers, from the small Corona bookstore involved in the 1985 People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court case in which a unanimous court drew a bright line against public agencies hiring private lawyers on a contingency fee basis.

“Today’s opinion states: ‘There is no indication that the contingent-fee arrangements in the present case have created a danger of governmental overreaching or economic coercion. Defendants are large corporations with access to abundant monetary and legal resources.’

“Flaunting this double-standard criteria for justice is unhelpful in a state already giving major job creating, tax revenue-providing corporations good reason to wonder why they should keep or locate any operations here.”

You can read the entire decision (PDF) here.

The study "was conducted for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform to explore how reasonable and balanced the states’ tort liability systems are perceived to be by U.S. business."

California's ranking in the last three reports has gone from 45 in 2007 to 44 in 2008 to 46 in 2010.

You can read the full report here.

In the 2006 report, California ranked 35th. In 2008, we were 34th. This year, California dropped to 41st.

You can read the full report here.

“Should we have that removed? Are lawyers going to sue THE LIBRARY! Disgusting! How about some favorite hiking and fishing locations? Look forward to more land closures all over our once free state! State agencies can then close down anything that has to do with serpentine, all because of the crap science used by the ‘asbestos awareness’ groups, which are nothing but fronts for asbestos litigation...”
Political columnist Dan Walters mined the issue in Friday’s Sacramento Bee, explaining that there is more than symbolism in SB 624.
“Its declarations, geologists say, are scientifically incorrect. And if it's enacted, it could open new avenues for litigation, which explains why lawyers who pursue asbestos suits are pushing it... Were SB 624 to become law, declaring serpentine as carcinogenic, it could widen the opportunities for lawsuits against owners of property with naturally occurring outcroppings of serpentine.”
Walters concluded his column with a quote from Civil Justice Association of California President John H. Sullivan:
“We’ve long observed that personal injury lawyers will leave no stone unturned in their hunt for new cases, but this is ridiculous.”
Sullivan later noted that CJAC has been monitoring the surge of out-of-state law firms moving into California to file ‘traditional’ asbestos cases against companies that years ago may have used asbestos in products. “One can conclude from geologists’ observations that SB 624 is an attempt to twist good science in order to develop new business for the lawsuit industry,” he said.
The National Cancer Institute has provided an objective comment on naturally occurring asbestos:
“Everyone is exposed to asbestos at some time during their life. Low levels of asbestos are present in the air, water, and soil. However, most people do not become ill from their exposure. People who become ill from asbestos are usually those who are exposed to it on a regular basis, most often in a job where they work directly with the material or through substantial environmental contact.”

These arrangements have now spread to other arenas, including financial services, environmental litigation, and general products liability. State AGs and government attorneys claim they lack the resources and expertise to pursue these types of cases without private plaintiffs' lawyers. But, as Christian and Casell discuss, the system has become corrupt, with plaintiffs' attorneys donating to AG campaigns in exchange for potential contingency windfalls for being selected to prosecute actions on the state's behalf.

The California Supreme Court in May heard oral argument in a case that could reverse a longstanding precedent that defense attorneys have relied on for 25 years to prevent governments from entering into contingency fee arrangements with plaintiffs' lawyers.

"Attorneys representing the government are charged with seeking the public good, even if that means agreeing to injunctive relief or dropping a case without merit," the authors write. "When an attorney who is supposed to look out for the people's interests stands to profit personally from a monetary recovery, he compromises his ability to advance the public good above his own well-being. There are also serious concerns about the separation of powers among the government's branches."

The authors conclude that states should follow the examples of Texas and other states that require legislative approval of large contingency fee contracts. States can also mandate that attorneys take part in a competitive bid process, impose caps on contingency fee agreements, and prohibit attorneys who contribute to AG campaigns from collaborating with those officials in litigation.

"Delegating public enforcement power to private attorneys with a large financial incentive may make sense for those attorneys' pocketbooks, but it is not in the best interest of justice," Christian and Casell write. "The battle against the 'unholy alliance' must continue."

“Proposition 14 will help Californians elect lawmakers who will spend less time squabbling with one another and more time putting our state back on financial track,” said CJAC President John H. Sullivan.

“The Civil Justice Association is supporting Proposition 14 because it will enable more candidates to run who cannot be captured by narrow, special interests such as the personal injury lawyer industry.”

He said the Proposition 14’s benefits are well-summarized in a Ventura County Star editorial supporting the measure: “Memo to California voters: If you’re tired of dysfunctional government where ideology trumps good public policy, vote yes on Proposition 14 in June.”

Combined with an existing new law that charges a neutral, independent commission with redrawing legislative district lines, Sullivan said Proposition 14 will better enable the Legislature to find balanced solutions to the state’s problems. California’s courts, as well as an array of schools and state and local government services, will benefit from a realistic, responsible funding and expenditure plan, he said.

To learn more, visit www.yeson14openprimary.com.

The contributions - virtually all to Democrats - by individual personal injury lawyers and other trial attorneys, their families, law firms, and political action committees pushed plaintiffs' bar donations during the 2009-2010 cycle to almost $1.65 million, according to the analysis by the Civil Justice Association of California of data collected by the Secretary of State's office.

"These lawyers are among the largest contributor to political candidates here in California and nationally," noted CJAC President John H. Sullivan. "While political contributions are a legitimate part of our freedom to communicate and select government representatives, the public should be informed when a powerful special interest is conducting a massive program to elect representatives purely in the interest of pursuing its own narrow agenda."

Most compilations of plaintiffs' attorney campaign contributions vastly underestimate amounts because they only look at political action committee contributions and overlook the larger amounts given directly by individual lawyers, their firms, and their families. But CJAC fully reviews state campaign records in order to calculate the significant money from these additional plaintiffs' lawyer sources.

Following is the breakdown of plaintiffs' lawyer contributions in races for governor, attorney general, and insurance commissioner, along with significant contributions to legislative candidates. Only candidates who have filed reporting statements are included.

Governor

By far the most trial lawyer contributions went to Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is virtually unopposed for the party's nomination for governor.

Insurance Commissioner

In the insurance commissioner's contest, Assembly Member Dave Jones of Sacramento was the second-highest recipient of plaintiffs' lawyer contributions during the reporting period and overall. His opponent for the nomination, South Gate Assembly Member Hector De La Torre, placed fourth in overall trial lawyer contributions.

Attorney General

Former Los Angeles District Attorney Rocky Delgadillo is the fifth-largest recipient of trial bar cash since the beginning of 2009. San Francisco D.A. Kamala Harris is right behind.

Legislative Races

Among legislative candidates, by far the largest recipient of plaintiffs' lawyer contributions has been Betsy Butler, the chief fundraiser for the trial lawyers' lobbying group. Butler is one of five major candidates running for the Democratic nomination in the 53rd Assembly District in L.A. County. Among all candidates - statewide and legislative - she placed fourth in trial lawyer donations during the reporting period and third overall. In fact, one of every four of her campaign dollars has come from personal injury lawyers.

Plaintiffs' attorneys gave generously to the legislative leaders - Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento and Assembly Speaker John Perez of Los Angeles - who are always major fundraisers. Two candidates receiving significant funding aren't running in this election - senators Mark DeSaulnier of Concord and Carol Liu of Pasadena, both in their first terms in office. And two major beneficiaries of plaintiffs' attorney cash - Assembly Members Mike Feuer of Los Angeles (chair of the Judiciary Committee) and William Monning of Santa Cruz - are running unopposed.

Following are the largest recipients of trial lawyer contributions and amounts donated to their opponents, if any.

Only one Republican candidate for statewide or legislative office has received a significant amount of plaintiffs' attorney contributions. State Senator George Runner of Lancaster, who's running for the District 2 seat on the Board of Equalization, received $13,000 from them during the reporting period and $29,700 overall.

SACRAMENTO - Many lawsuits are legitimate cases filed by people who were injured in some way and deserve their day in court. Unfortunately, there are many other lawsuits that can only be described as frivolous - or worse, cases in which cynical plaintiffs’ lawyers file suit in hopes of a big payday.

In recognition of April Fools Day, here is CJAC’s annual roundup of cases we can only wish were make-believe, and perhaps would be if the state and the nation enacted meaningful legal reforms.

What - There Are Other People Named Lindsay? Celebrity Lindsay Lohan recently filed a $100 million lawsuit against E-Trade, claiming the hit ad unveiled during this year’s Super Bowl that depicted a boyfriend-stealing milkaholic baby named Lindsay defamed her. Lohan’s lawyer said the actress is so well-known that her first name brings instant recognition.

Are They Cereal Litigants? A man filed suit in San Francisco last year, accusing Kellogg’s of misleading consumers by calling its popular cereal “Froot Loops.” The man said he bought and ate several boxes of the product based on his mistaken belief that the cereal actually contained fruit - apparently not bothering to look at the nutrition information prominently displayed on each box. The case was similar to another class action lawsuit in San Francisco in which a woman claimed she was misled by the makers of Cap’n Crunch Crunchberries. Happily, both cases were thrown out.

Convicted Armed Robber Sues Victim for Fighting Back A Michigan man serving an 8- to 22-year sentence for attempting to rob a party store of cash and cigarettes has filed a lawsuit against the store’s owner and some of its employees for shooting him during the botched armed robbery attempt. The convicted felon is seeking more than $125,000 for pain and suffering and emotional distress.

She Should Have Turned the Thing Off in the First Place A woman is suing a Niles, Illinois, movie theater for injuries she said she sustained after the armrest fell from the upright position and struck her in the head when she bent down to “discreetly” answer her cell phone during a showing of The Incredible Hulk. The woman claims the falling armrest caused her to lose consciousness, gave her a concussion, experience blurred vision, and suffer “a large bump on her head.”

Asbestos Lawyers California Bound

Out here in California we see fraud-convicted Mississippi asbestos lawyers ("Asbestos Turnabout," Review & Outlook, March 18) William Guy and Thomas Brock simply guilty of bad timing and picking the wrong state to double-dip for damages.

Here they could have sued, collected and then gone after duplicate compensation from one of the many bankruptcy trusts already set up by defendants.
That way there would be no chance of courtroom disclosure and no repercussions when they made their second scoop.

Other asbestos lawyers know this and are making about the only business in-migration California is seeing these days.

Judges in larger counties here, where asbestos cases eat up the civil calendar and courtrooms go dark one day a month in the budget crisis, are beginning to sense the injustice and extra workload fostered by the double-dip scam.

John H. Sullivan
President
Civil Justice Association of California

Sacramento, Calif.

The Civil Justice Association of California is a non-profit, membership supported coalition of citizens, taxpayers, businesses, local governments, professionals, manufacturers, financial institutions, insurers, and medical organizations. Founded in 1979, CJAC is the only statewide association dedicated solely to improving California’s civil liability system. It is active in both the Legislature and the courts, working to reduce the excessive and unwarranted litigation that increases business and government expenses, discourages innovation, and drives up the costs of goods and services for all consumers. For more information, visit www.cjac.org.

SACRAMENTO - Personal injury and other plaintiffs’ lawyers hit the $1 million mark in political contributions to incumbent state officials and candidates for office during 2009, according to data compiled by the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC).

During the year leading up to the legislative and statewide elections in 2010, trial lawyers gave $567,000 to incumbents and candidates for statewide office and $464,000 to Senate and Assembly candidates and officeholders. Political action committees controlled by plaintiffs’ attorneys gave $272,000, but contributions from individual lawyers and their firms totaled nearly three times as much - $759,000.
The 2009 contributions brings the total given by trial lawyers to California statewide and legislative officeholders and candidates to just under $35.2 million since the 1999-2000 election cycle, according to CJAC’s calculations, which are based on campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State’s office.
This figure greatly exceeds the $8.8 million in trial lawyer campaign contributions during the past decade that was contained in a study* released Wednesday by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The FPPC listed the trial lawyers as the 25th largest special interest group in total spending on influencing government decisions but its calculations included money spent lobbying officials while omitting contributions made to candidates and incumbents from lawyers, their firms, and family members. Those latter contributions made up 71 percent of the total given.
“The bottom line is that personal injury lawyer and other plaintiffs’ lawyer money is enormous by any measure, especially given the contributors’ narrow focus of promoting their litigation industry,” said CJAC President John H. Sullivan. “The lion’s share of trial lawyer money going to candidates and office holders comes directly from individual lawyers and their firms, not trial lawyer campaign committees. Therefore, these lawyers’ ongoing attempt to influence our government is far greater than even the high level documented by the FPPC and most others attempting to track campaign dollars.”
During 2009, the bulk of the trial bar’s contributions to statewide candidates went to Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is running virtually unopposed for the Democratic nomination for governor, and to two Democratic candidates each for attorney general and insurance commissioner.
During 2009, trial lawyers gave Brown’s campaign $142,300.
In the race to succeed Brown as attorney general, the plaintiffs’ lawyers gave $53,800 to former L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and $51,600 to San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris.
In the contest for insurance commissioner, they contributed virtually the same amount to two candidates - $78,000 to Assemblyman Dave Jones of Sacramento and $71,300 to Assemblyman Hector de la Torre of South Gate. Eleven percent of Jones’ contributions and 7 percent of de la Torre’s funding last year came from trial lawyers.
In Senate races, five Democratic candidates have received $10,000 or more from trial lawyers, led by incumbent Mark DeSaulnier of Concord, who has received $19,600, which is 15 percent of his total contributions. The other top recipients of trial lawyer money were Assemblywoman Mary Salas, who is running in a San Diego-area Senate district, and Senator Mark Leno, who is running for re-election in San Francisco. Salas, who is running against fellow Assemblyman Juan Vargas, has received $15,200 (5 percent of her total), while Leno has picked up $14,900 (also 5 percent of his total).
Five candidates for the Assembly - again, all Democrats - have received $10,000 or more in trial lawyer contributions, led by Betsy Butler, a former fundraiser for the plaintiff attorneys’ lobbying group, who has received a staggering $68,300 (26 percent of her total) in her race for an open seat in Los Angeles County. Two other Democratic candidates have received $20,000 or more - Richard Gordon, who is running in a Silicon Valley district - and incumbent Mike Feuer from Los Angeles.
Sullivan said that while political contributions are a legitimate part of our freedom to communicate and select government representatives, the public should be informed when a powerful special interest is conducting a massive program to elect representatives purely in the interest of pursuing its own narrow agenda.

More information - as well as a breakdown of contributions to each candidate and incumbent - is available on CJAC’s web site

• Big Money Talks: The 15 Special Interests That Spent $1Billion to Shape California Government, State of California Fair Political Practices Commission, March 2010