The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is mobilizing its members once again against a sensible legal reform that might cut into their lavish incomes. We're talking about a change in the way automobile drivers insure themselves -- a change that would indeed jeopardize the million-dollar contingency fees some trial lawyers earn from car-crash suits.
Long championed by Michael Horowitz, a Reagan administration official now at the Hudson Institute, this auto-insurance reform would allow drivers a choice. They could still buy exactly the policies they already have. Or they could lower the cost of their insurance substantially if they agree to give up the right to sue for "pain and suffering" in the event of an accident.
Why does that matter? Because it is precisely the notoriously subjective " pain and suffering" claims that are responsible both for huge payments to lawyers and for the health-care fraud and abuse that the current system perversely encourages.
States like New Jersey (whose governor, Christine Todd Whitman, just made these reforms a centerpiece of her efforts this year) like the Horowitz proposal because it would save consumers large sums, unclog courts, and reduce the amount of parasitic business mostly dubious medical consultations - - reared by these "pain and suffering" suits. Sounds pretty smart, no? Not according to the trial lawyers' group. In a mass mailing to members and prospective members, ATLA issues a call to arms against auto-insurance reform. The letter describes the reform as "a cruel hoax," and "insidious," and pleads: "we urgently need you to help us defeat this latest assault on our livelihood and our clients . . ."
Consider the wording here: "Our livelihood" first, "our clients" second. Very revealing, don't you think?