Senate passes limit on class-action lawsuits

article

The Senate approved a measure Thursday to help shield businesses from major class action lawsuits like the ones that have been brought against tobacco companies, giving President Bush the first legislative victory of his second term.

Under the legislation, long sought by big business, large multistate class action lawsuits could no longer be heard in small state courts. Such courts have handed out multimillion-dollar verdicts.

Instead, the cases would be heard by federal judges, who have not proven as open to those type of lawsuits.

The Senate passed the bill 72-26. It now goes to the House.
...
Opponents say Bush and other bill supporters are trying to help businesses escape proper judgments for their wrongdoing - and also to hurt the trial lawyers who litigate the cases, some of whom are big Democratic contributors.

"Are there bad lawyers that bring meritless cases? Sure there are, and we should crack down on them," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a former trial lawyer. "But this bill is not about punishing bad lawyers. It is about hurting consumers and helping corporations avoid liability for misconduct."

Eight Democrats were sponsors of the bill, leaving the rest with no way to block it.
...
Under the compromise legislation, class-action suits would be heard in state court if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if less than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, the case would go to federal court.

At least $5 million would have to be at stake for a federal court to hear a class-action suit.

The bill also would limit lawyers' fees in so-called coupon settlements - when plaintiffs get discounts on products instead of financial settlements - by linking the fees to the coupon's redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.

One thing that particularly struck me is "Are there bad lawyers that bring meritless cases? Sure there are, and we should crack down on them". I am have never heard of a lawyer's legal license being revoked, and I am unable to find any data on that subject (or of removal from state bar associations). Honestly, I don't know how often the bad lawyers are being rooted out, if they are at all.

Obviously, a cap on rewards is needed. However, it's far better to get rid of the BS lawyers who will accept any case for no charge, except a hefty portion of settlements or payoff, knowing that many people prefer to settle even if they would probably win in court. It's those lawyers who are gathering clouds over the entire profession. And sadly, due to the nature of the particular scam, these lawyers may try many more cases than honest lawyers, and thus have a disproportionately large influence on public opinion.
One way to end this scam may be to have the loser of the case pay the legal fees of the winner. However, that may prevent many reasonable cases from going to court because a lawyer or his client is unwilling to accept the risk of loss.

Additionally, I believe the entire debt system must be looked at. Some credit collection companies seem to have gained an ability to charge debts that appeared out of nowhere, and completely ignore Cease & Desist letters. AOL/Time Warner managed to charge me for internet service for several months after I cancelled the service, which was being paid on a month-to-month basis. I called to cancel at least half a dozen times, tried everything relevant to get AOL/Time Warner to stop acting like assholes and stop charging, but they still charged me – legally or otherwise (probably well within the "otherwise" category).
Oh yeah, an interesting credit website/forum is here.

So much needs reform, all because a few percent of the people in a profession will do anything for money, and don't care who or how many they take down for it. But, I suppose this has always been the case.