Punitives

Catching up on my bar journals again. Back in February, the ABA Journal ran an article about trial lawyers renaming their professional association in order to undo some of the damage wrought by the Republicans' thirty-plus-year campaign to discredit trial lawyers (and lawyers in general, although lawyers who make a practice of suppressing the votes of would-be Democratic voters seem to be okay. But I digress...). In any case, the piece generated several letters. Here is an exerpt from one of them:

Before becoming a lawyer, I spent 15 years in advertising, marketing, and public relations. I advised many clients to sell or develop their products overseas to avoid the possible liability risks here. The lack of tort reform is hurting this country's economy and does not make us safer. It is the media that makes us safer when it investigates and reports, causing people to stop buying products, not lawyers and lawsuits. Too often, the plaintiff's own stupidity causes the harm, but he or she wins money anyway.

Punitive damages making into a multimillionaire someone who otherwise never would have close to that amount in his or her lifetime is absurd.

A couple of things here.

First, notice the total lack of support for the assertion about "the lack of tort reform" hurting the country.

Second, I wonder how much time and effort author spends agitating for a media that gives more than passing attention to consumer protection issues. I'd also like to hear his views on "free trade," regulatory issues, and the extra-legal remedies he would seek if his child was harmed by, say, lead paint in "Birthday Dora" doll. Being a "tort reform" proponent like Robert Bork, no doubt he would shun any remedies available to him in the courts.

Finally, George Lakoff would have a field day with that last statement. Because, after all, only the "best people" should have that kind of money.

Blech.