I read in the paper on Monday that at least nine lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against China claiming authorities there did not do enough to corral the virus initially, tried to hide what was happening in the outbreak center of Wuhan, and sought to conceal their actions and what they knew.
One of the lawsuits was filed by Attorney General Eric Schmitt of Missouri, who is a Republican. This is where Shakespeare’s famous line, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” gains some traction and makes sense. But being a member of that august society, I’m really not in favor of that solution. Besides there are more Atticus Finch-like lawyers than Better Call Saul-like lawyers out there, and I’d like to think the vast majority rise above ambulance chasing.
This kind of behavior is why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is likely to hold up the next congressional aid package until there is blanket immunity from liability for all businesses in the United States. Why is our society so litigious? Is it all about greed? Or is it about need?
The greedy among us tend to fall for the lure of filing personal-injury lawsuits trying to take advantage of insurance companies or honest, hard-working business owners. But there are also people who file cases because of need. Some want more than they deserve, some need it to put food on their table. What is the solution? Kill all the lawyers? No. Pass laws that limit liability? No. The solution is to level the playing field. Take away the need and the incentives.
If people did not end up with huge medical bills after getting sick or injured, that would reduce the need. We need a better health care system, whether it is universal health care or an improved Affordable Care Act to solve that problem.
If the injury or sickness causes someone to lose income because they cannot work, then we should improve sick leave policies and unemployment insurance to make sure the person continues to get paid while they are out of work. We need a better safety net in place to solve that problem.
If lawyers were prohibited from taking these cases on a contingency basis, that would take away an incentive. Lawyers tend to inflate the monetary demand so that their one-third cut is bigger and they make more money. Plaintiffs do not have to pay in advance so the benefit outweighs any of the potential costs, unless they lose and they are saddled with the attorney’s costs. There are too many people gambling in the contingency world and it breeds unscrupulous behavior in way too many cases.
I also suggest creating a “grand jury” process in personal injury cases. In the criminal world, a prosecutor needs to submit the facts to a grand jury before filing a felony-level criminal case. A civil-level “grand jury,” which would be an independent body of impartial individuals, would weigh the facts and decide if the case has merit before you are allowed to file a case in court. The fee for that could be minimal to cover the court’s cost. But then, I also suggest raising the fee for filing personal injury cases in court to further disincentivize the frivolous cases.
I am generally not in favor of litigation reform, but in this world we live in where uncertainty reigns (or rains, depending on how you look at it) wouldn’t it be more prudent to find solutions to problems than to fight about the problems in court?
We’ve proven that government can provide a safety net when a virus ravages the country (see, CARES Act) so why can’t we do that in normal times and reduce the need for lawsuits, legitimate or frivolous.
(Susannah Colt lives in Whitefield.)