|
Reforming lawsuit abuse can help rebuild California
Guest column
While our state’s political leaders have spent the past year promoting ballot measures, tax increases and budget cuts as a way to tame the ever-growing $24-billion budget deficit, little attention has been given to increasing state revenues by making it easier for California employers to be more profitable and create jobs. California is among the most taxed and regulated states in the U.S. and, according to the Wall Street Journal, California leads the country in job losses. The Golden State’s economy and job market are further compromised by the fact that it is one of most litigious states in the country. Californians pay more than $32 billion a year in a “lawsuit tax”, or more than $3,300 a year for a family of four. That money could go a long way toward addressing the budget problem if it were used to purchase products and services that create jobs and generate tax revenue for local and state government. While largely ignored by many elected officials and today’s candidates, California’s small business owners know that the issue of lawsuit abuse is a very real and costly one. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has ranked California’s legal climate as fifth worst among all states for treatment of class action suits, punitive damages and jury predictability. According to a survey done by California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and the National Federation of Independent Business-California, 98 percent of respondents believe that lawsuits have hurt our economy, one-third have been sued in the last five years and six-in-ten small business owners have been threatened by lawsuits during the same period of time. Victims of frivolous lawsuits are not just businesses, but government too. A study conducted by CALA reported that California cities and counties are spending millions of dollars annually for outside counsel and court settlements rather than providing public services that benefit us all. The real challenge for today’s elected leaders and the candidates for constitutional offices up for grabs in 2010 lies in the need to rebuild our economy, create jobs and bring financial stability to public services by reforming lawsuit abuse. With a legal system that is out of control we all pay and we all lose. Consumers have less disposable income, businesses are less profitable and less tax revenue is available for critical public services. By cutting the fat associated with frivolous lawsuits, we can redirect those dollars to support our small business owners and their employees and strengthen our state’s flat lined economy. As the leading voice for lawsuit reform in California, CALA will continue to expose the real costs associated with unfettered lawsuit abuse. However, we can’t do it alone. Our success is dependent on consumers and small business owners stepping forward and demanding from their elected officials and top-of-the-ticket candidates a legal system that facilitates justice, not greed. Marko Mlikotin is the Northern California Regional Director for California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse and a resident of Folsom. For more information on lawsuit abuse, visit cala.com.
|
Change Location:
|
The author laments about California's $24 billion budget deficit; he complains about ballot measures, tax increases and budget cuts; the state must make it easier for state employers to be more profitable and create jobs. Does he give us sensible solutions to California's problems? Of course not! His solution? Same as Shakespeare's, 'let's kill all the lawyers'! He cites no source for the statistics he claims; remarkably, after reporting these unsubstantiated statistics he leaps to the conclusion that these statistics create the problem of "lawsuit abuse". He says that business and government are "victims of frivolous lawsuits". How is it "abuse" to file a lawsuit and win it? If the case is "frivolous", it should be thrown out of court; it should lose, shouldn't it? I 've practiced law for 32 years; judges will dismiss any lawsuit that they do not believe belongs in their courtroom. And, lawyers who make their livings on contingency fees ( they only collect if they win), make nothing by filing 'frivolous' or 'abusive' lawsuits. There is, simply, no incentive for them to do so. Calling something "abuse" or "frivolous" doesn't make it so. What statistics does he have to show that the lawsuits that produced his statistics were an 'abuse' of the system? If "frivolous", why were they successful? The answer, of course, is that serious lawsuits are successful, not frivolous ones. Tort reform gives wrong-doing and wrong-doers a free pass to commit atrocities. If given a free pass, …
Classic "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by powerful commercial interests, who hate, hate that they may actually be held accountableto regular people, if and when their conduct exceeds responsible limits, unless they dismantle the legitimacy of juries in the public debate.
CALA is a fake, corporate shill. Case in point: Mr. Milkotin, president of River City Communications ("RCC") who "happens" to be the Northern CA Director of this "grassroots" group "Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse." RCC's company's website reveals its true origins, and spirit: "RCC is a public affairs and government relations firm that has one mission: To develop winning strategies and achieve measurable results."
Leading clients on the RCC site include the CA Farm Bureau Federation. Frontpage of its wesbsite: "Lawsuit may bring new restrictions on crop protection." Oh no! "Lawsuits amok!" Actually, this "lawsuit" involves whether EPA should establish a minimal buffer zones between already protected wetlands and where pesticides can be used - to hopefully keep them from being totally poisoned.
Other RCC large clients: CA Restaurant Assn. Their site decries "meritless lawsuits" -which actually refers to those suits by people in wheelchairs who "frivolously" insist that businesses follow the law, passed by Congress, to provide handicapped access.
Dig into the leadership of these CALAs, connections to big tobacco. Responsible limits yes, but evaluate the messenger …