Tort Reform is a Bad Idea For Louisiana

Currently the amount in dispute needs to exceed $50,000.00 before any party can request a jury.  I ask for jury trials whenever my client's case qualifies. Lowering the threshold means I, and I assume many other plaintiffs, and certainly insurance companies, will be requesting juries on an extremely large scale. The State House and Senate have competing bills to lower the monetary threshold necessary to trigger a jury trial to 25, 20, 5 thousand or even $1. You're probably thinking what's wrong with jury trials? They are the backbone of the American justice system. I'll tell you what’s wrong: the intent of these bills is not about allowing citizens greater access to a jury. They are all about clogging the court system so insurers can delay having to pay the fair and just compensation that every civil litigant is entitled to. How so?

They would love to put the TV lawyers out of business, but the collateral damage would be devastating. More on that in a moment. Lawyers who advertise obviously deal in volume, cherry pick slam dunk cases that always settle. No point in devoting resources trying one case when you can settle many with the same amount of time and effort. So, they take only slam dunks. I’m not saying all such lawyers operate that way, but those that do will suddenly find themselves having to prepare for trial much, much more often, only to settle anyway. I'm not going to lose sleep if lawyer advertising became a thing of the past, but the repercussions of lowering the threshold too far will affect every person seeking access to court, not just injured people.        

Unlike a criminal case where someone's liberty is as stake, civil cases most often involve disputes over modest sums of money when liability isn't even in dispute. A judge can efficiently handle many judge trials. In fact, the vast majority of judges will conduct a settlement conference where each side summarizes their case and the judges give the parties an idea how he or she will rule if what the parties said is backed by the evidence. Over time this has developed into a system where the lawyers on each side have a good idea of what a particular case is worth based on each judge and can advise their clients accordingly. The result is that 99% of cases are settled without trial in a predictable, expeditious manner. Everyone involves save money and time and the courts operate more efficiently.

One thing many people don't realize is that Orleans Parish is different from all the other Parishes in that we have separate courts for civil and criminal trials. Other Parishes divide their dockets into each, usually on an alternating monthly basis. Jury trials are time consuming. A jury takes at least a half a day just to pick. You pick a jury, take an hour and a half lunch break, instruct the jury, call a witness or two and adjourn to the next day. Factor in the logistics involved in just taking a courtroom break, jurors becoming ill and no longer able to serve etc. and there is little chance of handling more than one jury trial a week, two tops. Consequently, Judges can't set more than a few jury trials a week because it only takes one to cause all the others to get bumped to the next available date which is often 6 months to a year away (and even longer if these bills pass). The more trials a judge sets per week increases the number of litigants sent back to the end of the line each time a case goes to trial. If every case, no matter how small, needs to wait until a jury trial date is available, Lawyers' calendars will be booked years in advance forcing us to agree to multiple trials on the same day in the hopes all but one if not all will settle. The cases will stack up to the point where an injured person will wait years before their day in court. 

And remember, not every civil case involves injury. Need a restraining order? Divorce? Custody hearing? Need to resolve a contract dispute? Zoning challenge? Property rights? Every single type of case will be affected when the courts' dockets fill up with jury trial dates.

Given the virus going around, would you want to sit on a jury anytime soon, in a room with a large group of people then in a smaller room with a dozen strangers? Factor in our current social distancing requirements and there will already be a multi-year backlog as soon as any of these laws go into effect. And trust me, the insurance company will offer to settle right before trial before they have to pay their lawyers to spend hours preparing for trial as well as the expense of the jury when they lose. And they are still going to lose so they will settle anyway, all the while having your money in their bank account. They simply want to wear injured people down and make it seem too expensive and time consuming to sue and therefore settle for pennies on the dollar. Any increase in civil trials will either force the other Parishes to devote less time to their criminal docket or overload their civil docket. Everyone suffers under either scenario. Insurance companies are asking to lower the threshold with every intention of requesting a jury in every case. Why else would they want to lower the threshold?                                                                            

Jury trials are expensive. A party has to post a cash bond in advance averaging several thousand dollars in order to cover the costs of a jury. The costs associated with sending out notices to paying people to show and serve, which usually includes meals and sometimes lodging. Add to that the cost to our citizens to take days, and maybe weeks if selected, out of their lives.  Why would insurers want to increase the cost of litigation? To drag things out. They get their bond money back if they settle.                   

Juries are unpredictable. That is what happens when you pluck random strangers out of their homes and ask them to serve. Insurance rates are based on predictability. So why would an industry whose entire business model is based on predictability want costly, time-consuming jury trials for even trivial matters? Remember, lowering the threshold does nothing to impair their ability to defend large cases (that's why they want to cap damages at $500,000.00). It is to clog the courts. 

In summary, the bills seeking to lower the threshold for jury trials are malicious nonsense designed to screw everyone over so the insurance companies can increase their profits. Oh, you think I only have my self-interest at heart? That I want you to pay high insurance rates? That these bills will help lower your car insurance rates? Ha! Why would insurance companies want to do that when you are compelled, by law, to buy their products at their inflated prices?

Please contact your House and Senate reps and let them know all of the reasons why these bills are terrible.