Can tort reform taper harms?
While doing research for our billboard project, I intentionally paid very close attention to the ads featured along Florida’s highways. I wanted to see what type of messaging was effective, was there a more popular layout and what tried and tested design ideas we should use. What I discovered intrigued me. It seemed that half the ads out there are from personal injury attorneys.
I always considered accidents to be a bad thing. An unexpected tragedy. By definition, an accident is an unfortunate incident resulting in harm. But the billboards were of a different tone. A smiling woman holding fanned out hundreds with the tagline “My Lawyer Got me $300,000!!!”. And cutesy slogans such as “after 911, call 411”. The radio ads have very cheery jingles and the billboards have become as prevalent in the Florida landscape as palm trees.
I looked at the stats… as of 2022, the personal injury lawyer market size is $53.1 billion and has grown 6.4% this year. That’s a huge number and a huge increase. Nowadays, instead of “crunch”, people involved in accidents are hearing the words “ca-ching!”, and one has to question whether a significant number of fender benders that would have been no big deal a decade ago, have now turned into cash windfalls because in this industry, the insurance companies would sooner pay out $20,000 for a worthless claim than $25,000 to defend and win.
So before I transition into how this relates to the registry, let me start by explaining that auto accidents are tragedies. The number of traffic fatalities is unacceptable and those injured or killed in an accident that was not their fault are certainly entitled to compensation for their loss. There are factors much greater than personal injury attorneys that contribute to this tragedy, such as drivers distracted by cellphones and consumer demand for manufacturers to build cars capable of 500+ horsepower that would be primary. However, if we examine the problem: Too many people are getting hurt or injured in auto accidents, we should explore all factors that contribute to the problem and instead of having a $53.1 billion market for lawyers capitalizing on these cases, what if we put caps on contingency fees and marketing budgets so that more money can go to the victims (who need the compensation in the first place), less money can go towards selling the financial benefit of being in an accident, and contributing a portion of each victory to measures that will make streets safer?
And here’s the transition… This year New York passed a law that opened a one year window for adult survivors of sexual assault to file lawsuits against their perpetrators. Previously, people might have been too ashamed or afraid to come forward, so they did nothing and the statute of limitations passed. Since the #metoo movement many have stepped up and the State wanted to give those (and all other victims) a chance to sue.
But instead of victims racing forward, the first ones to the starting line are the lawyers, with ads such as, “If you are an adult survivor of child sexual abuse, you may be entitled to compensation, Call…”,
Sexual abuse is unacceptable and victims of sexual abuse are certainly entitled to compensation for their harm. That goes without saying. But if we really examine the problem, is creating a new legal niche going to solve that problem? More specifically, is the money getting paid to attorney’s (33.3-40% plus costs is a pretty standard contingency fee) going to repair that harm or are there other ideas, such as restorative justice, counseling, education, prevention, or support services that would serve the victims directly a better idea? Would a non-profit, victim-centered, results focused organization be the best advocates in this case, or should it be the ambulance chasers?
As I drive down the the roadways and see all these creative personal injury attorney ads and cutesy jingles, I try to empathize with the audience. What if I were hurt in an accident or the relative of someone killed in one. Would all these reminders of my trauma be constant triggers of something painful or welcome opportunities? What if I was in an accident that was not so bad? Would I consider calling the number to see if I can somehow get something out of it (I’m sure a decent percentage of the responders are opportunists – but we’ll set that thought aside and lets not address that in the comments).
Similarly, what if I were the victim of a sexual assault or a family member? Would all these ads reopen old wounds or would they offer solace? Will we start hearing insensitive upbeat jingles such as, “if your teacher touched your breast, our firm will get you more than the rest. Dirty uncle touched my crotch, so my lawyer got me this brand new watch!” (Clearly this is tasteless to suggest, but so are some of the accident injury ads).
With the amount of advertising dollars that are spent, this legal niches are very lucrative for the attorneys, but is it really benefiting victims or reducing the instances of car accidents or sexual assaults? This is all great for the attorneys, but shouldn’t the bar associations be thinking about the clients?
Well, Shakespeare wasn’t wrong… đ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_kill_all_the_lawyers
What the f are you talking about, our lawyers work hard for us on 0 contingency.
Anyone who believes âShakespeareâ called for killing lawyers is misreading Shakespeare.
This topic has also caught my attention. I donât pay much attention to the billboards but canât even get through a football game without muting the tv or fast forwarding to get past all these same attorneys commercials. And the Me Too movement has definitely done more harm than good and added toward ignorance and hate toward registered persons instead of helping victims. Like they say follow the money trail. We canât change that but hopefully educate those that are sincere about making things better instead of adding to the problem. Afraid they are much in the minority.
Where are all the adds offering to help those who have been falsely accused or entrapped by someone yeh thereâs not much money in that.
It should be noted that for the most part, there is no money in going after individuals convicted for sex crimes. The overwhelming majority of registrants are dead broke – not surprising considering the stigma, and not even factoring in employment and residence restrictions in many areas. Even current registrants who were comfortable (if not wealthy) before their respective arrests spent most of what they had defending themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, registrants don’t have Epstein-like resources.
No one is suing Jerry Sandusky. They’re suing Penn State under the insane idea that the Athletic Department just shrugged their shoulders and said, “Well, he’s a pretty good assistant coach. As long as it’s quiet, we should just overlook it.”
Ditto Larry Nassar and with the same reasoning: “Well, the girls are still tumbling, right? Leave well enough alone.”
Nor the individual pastors, teachers, or law enforcement officers. Always sue the church, school and school district, and LE agency. Never the individuals. See a theme here?
I guaran-damn-tee that anyone who responds to a lawyer that advertises “If you were the victim of a sexual assault…” of an offense that couldn’t be tied to an organization of some kind would receive response like, “Sorry, we can’t help you.” A few would probably even add, “That’ll be $150 for the consultation. Cash, check, or charge?”
There is plenty of money going after the employers. Look at what happened to Boy Scouts of America. They filed Chapter 11 because the judgements were in the billions. Yes, not everyone is a Jeffrey Epstein or a Harvey Weinstein, but think about the school boards that employed teachers Churches that employed pastors or the insurance companies that insured corporations.
I think part of the message here is lost. Using the Boy Scouts example, a flood of lawsuits from assaults in the 70’s and 80’s were filed and law firms made hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, the injured get some money and they deserve that money, but purely from the perspective of a victim, is that the most healing outcome? What about those who have gone on to live normal lives over the past 40 years who are re-triggered by seeing these ads?
Instead of “I’m attorney John Smith. If you were sexually abused as a boy scout, I can help you get compensation. I don’t get paid unless you get paid!” how about, “I’m Dr. John Smith, a licensed psychologist and trauma specialist. A fund has been set up to provide free and anonymous counseling to those who were sexually abused while in the boy scouts.”
This is spot on and hands down the best and most positive thing I’ve ever heard. Well said.
What should a billboard profile? It should profile people and the ridiculous outcomes to a registry.
Like, “I was 13 years old and abused and acted out because of it.. 30 years later I am still on a registry… is that fair? Is that protecting you?”
Have COURTS decide who is dangerous and not politics!
I don’t know how many billboards you guys can afford…but highlight obvious injustice…there are 1000’s of them.
The problem with the whole civil lawsuit speal, is to compensate victim’s for their pain and suffering. But, does it really compensate them? I mean sure, money can buy happiness, but it doesn’t always buy lasting mental repair, and even sometimes physical repair. So, who’s really benefitting? Well, we know who really benefits from this fiasco. Those victims who are truly traumatized, money can’t usually solve their problems, without it going to psychiatric therapy primarily. This country, and especially Florida, has become sue nation, the new lottery ticket is only an injury away!
The entire basis of a tort judgement is to make the victim of the tort “Whole” again.
If you crash your car into a building, then the judgement would most likely be the costs of repairing the building plus and incidentals like a hotel stay for the tenants.
Does awarding someone a multi- million dollar judgement (for an intangible like pain and suffering or emotional distress make them “whole” again?
If so, how “whole” does it make them?
There should be clear limits, in my opinion.
A tort is a “non-contract civil wrong”
You have criminal law and civil law. Within civil you have contracts and torts (obviously there’s family law, maritime, etc., but I’m just talking basics here).
It’s not necessarily just to make the victim “whole”. There can be statutory treble damages, such as in the case of the tort of civil theft and then there’s punitive damages, which are intended to punish the wrongdoer. These multi-million dollar judgments are usually class actions so the damages awarded are shared among a class of plaintiffs. And in many cases the damages are not quantifiable nor can they ever make a victim whole (can’t resurrect the dead).
That said, I agree that the business of personal injury/mass tort law is a bit predatory and should be regulated better.
7th Circuit clarifies âentrapmentâ
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2022/D12-15/C:22-1301:J:St__Eve:condis:T:fnOp:N:2975946:S:0
Defendant âwas entitled to an entrapment jury instruction, where the girl* used persistent coaxing and persuasion to get him to reluctantly agree to the crime.â
Per Gabriel Malor on Twitter