In Defense of Lawyers and Lawsuits--And the Solution to Frivolous Lawsuits

As a member of the legal profession, I write in response to Ross Watters' article in "The Daily Titan" on September 21, 2011 in which Watters claims that we live in a "litigation-happy country" and thus we are using to our advantage our "deeper knowledge about the legal system and laws than any previous generation." I contend that this article errs in how it represents the legal profession and the average American's understanding of the laws under which we live. I further argue that the article's endorsements of damages caps, as a means to prevent frivolous claims, is poorly placed--because damages caps only punishes those with legitimate egregious claims, it does not punish those who pursue frivolous lawsuits, or who intentionally reject legitimate offers of resolution in the hopes that it "just might be their lucky day" in front of the jury. Thus I argue that there are available means to oppose frivolous lawsuits that don't involve punishing those with legitimate claims.

My first point, however, is to argue against the notion that this is a litigation-happy country. If one googles the term litigation-happy, one finds scores of articles that make this claim, namely that this country is litigation-happy -- with the tiny reprieve of two articles referring to Bangladesh and Ireland and litigation-happy. I cannot, however, find any statistics or definitions to back up the claim that this country is litigation-happy. As a lawyer that speaks with potential clients for a certain portion of my day, I agree that many people seek legal redress for injuries and harm that should be resolved in a non-litigious way.

However, the fact that something should be resolved without resorting to litigation does not mean that non-litigation-oriented resolutions are available. For instance, in "Access to Justice," Deborah Rhode points out that in countries with socialized medicine, there are often fewer birth-defect lawsuits because litigation is not needed to recover the cost of life-long medical care, the most costly injury of a birth-related medical injury. I believe that Professor Rhode also presented statistics related to injuries from car accidents, and other injuries, where litigation is sometimes the only method for the injured to recover from any source the costs for necessary medical care.

In fact, contrary to the notion that we need to make courts less accessible are the facts that the courts are are already not adequately accessible for those without means. In November 2009, for instance, the District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission and the DC Consortium of Legal Service Providers published a report entitled, "Rationing Justice: the Effect of the Recession on Access to Justice in the District of Columbia." The report finds legal service lawyers estimate a 20% increase in demand due to the recession. This increase in need is not due to people seeking to make an easy buck, but due to people facing real legal problems. For instance, in the second quarter of 2009, there were 2,353 single family homes and condos placed in foreclosure, most of whose owners had no legal counsel to advocate on their behalf. The report further states that a subsidiary problem to foreclosure is the rights of the tenant in a foreclosed-on rental unit. The report also found that domestic violence cases were on the rise, thus requiring an increased number of lawyers needed to assist victims. Three other legal needs that are caused by economic needs are (a) access to shelter due to homelessness; (b) assistance obtaining unemployment benefits; and (c) access to temporary assistance for needy families in the forms of food stamps, disability benefits, and other public benefits. The report concludes with some powerful language: "somewhere in the District a family won't ave enough to eat tonih because of a bureaucratic mistake. A child will be hospitalized yet again because the rat droppings in her apartment caused an asthma attack. A veteran who has served in combat will sleep on the street because he could not access the public benefits, mental health services, and shelter to which he is entitled... Because of the crisis in legal services, there are simply not enough lawyers to help our suffering, low-income neighbors. And next year, there will be even fewer... The result is that justice is being rationed. And as is too often the case, those with most in need are getting too small a measure of justice."

In September 2005 and in June 2007, the Legal Services Corporation published a report entitled,"Documenting the Justice Gap in America." The Introduction to the report identifies several civil legal needs of low-income individuals not currently being addressed, namely: protection from abusive relationships, safe and habitable housing, access to necessary health care, disability payments to help lead independent lives, family law issues including child support and custody actions, and relief from financial exploitation. Principle findings are: (1)For every client served by an LSC-funded program, at least one person who sought help was turned down because of insufficient resources. (2) Only a very small percentage of the legal problems experienced by low-income people (one in five or less) are addressed with the assistance of either a private attorney (pro bono or paid) or a legal aid lawyer. (3) The per capita ratio of legal aid attorneys funded by all sources to the low-income population is a tiny fraction of the ratio of private attorneys providing personal civil legal services to the general population. (4) ten state studies found that only 10-30 percent of legal needs of low income individuals were met with legal help from counsel.

This information challenges the notion that this is a litigation-happy country seeking to resolve petty problems in court. If Watters' article is correct that in this country, we have one lawyer for every 320 citizens, then we must also conclude not that we have too many lawyers but that the legal work is not properly distributed to address the legal problems that require addressing. The article focuses of what are referred to as run-away verdicts, a big example being "the McDonald's Coffee Case" on which I have previously commented (in a prior post.) Again, the fact that the judge remitted the verdict to a lower amount indicates that "run-away verdicts" are not the problem so claimed. I have sought to research another example raised in the article to determine its accuracy and now have reason to think the author is quoting an Internet story rather than a true case.

Her article concludes by complimenting Texas Governor Perry's legislation that penalizes plaintiffs who bring forth losing lawsuits. The legislation, as adopted, appears to give courts discretion to award attorney fees to defendants if they defeat plaintiffs on early motions for summary judgment. The effect of the legislation will depend on how it is applied. If courts narrowly apply this law to cases where plaintiffs acted with malice or frivolousness in bringing their case, then the law does nothing different than what is the law in most or all of the land, namely that a litigant bringing a frivolous lawsuit may be liable for the opposing sides attorney fees for the tort of abuse of process. Federal Rule 68 also offers defendant a means to fight lawsuits of low worth. Under a Rule 68 offer of judgment, if a judgment that that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made. If attorney fees are available under Federal Rule 68, then Rule 68 is certainly a perfectly available means to attack frivolous claims. Under Marek v. Chesney, 473 US 1 (1985), costs in this situation include attorney fees. (I haven't studied whether the law of this case has been revised by subsequent case or statute.)

In short, the claims our legal system are overrun with frivolous cases are often baseless claims. The claims that damages caps will halt frivolous lawsuits are also misguided, as there are other laws already in place to prevent "runaway juries" and frivolous claims. Instead, courts and other members of the legal world would do well to consider whether there are problems with the way in which lawyers are distributed to the public, such that many go without legal help.

As a postscript, I want to clarify that I have no facts to challenge the notion that there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits. Just as the articles I read brought forth no facts to suggest that there really are many frivolous lawsuits, I have no facts to say that this isn't a problem in existence, or an important one. However, it is my impression that there are laws in place to address these matters already, not a need for a new regime of loser-pay laws.