Congress Takes Up Bill to Curb Suits

Congress began a push Tuesday to expand federal jurisdiction over class-action lawsuits, the first of a series of bills championed by President Bush and corporations that want to curb the influence of trial lawyers and what they consider “frivolous” litigation.

The bill would move many class-action suits -- those brought on behalf of large numbers of people, often consumers -- from state to federal courts, which are considered more pro-business and less friendly to plaintiffs.

Congress may consider as many as five pieces of legislation that would impose limits on lawsuits brought by the public in areas such as consumer protection, bankruptcy, asbestos injuries, firearm liability and medical malpractice.

The initial piece of the Republican legal reform agenda is the Class Action Fairness Act, which has the support of a number of Democrats, including California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The bill is expected to pass this week, and GOP leaders say they hope momentum from that passage will help the prospects for the subsequent measure, which is more controversial.

“This is a first, significant step toward [curbing] what we’re calling lawsuit abuse,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

The bill’s supporters argue that it is aimed at two main problems: settlements where lawyers receive large payments while plaintiffs receive little or nothing in damages, and “forum shopping,” where lawyers file suits in small courts in odd locations that have a reputation for granting large awards to plaintiffs.

“This bill, like most, is not perfect,” Feinstein said. “But I believe that it represents the best that can be done to solve what is a real problem in our legal system -- when plaintiffs’ lawyers ‘forum shop’ to pick the court most favorable to their case. It also helps ensure that victims can get a larger percentage of the settlement, rather than all the money going to attorneys.”

But other Democrats said that the bill would unwisely limit access to courts by precisely those citizens and consumers with the fewest resources.

“This bill tips the scales of justice against the average American,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), said during Senate debate.

Last year the bill passed easily in the House but stalled in the Senate.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday that the chamber would take up this year’s bill as soon as it passes the Senate. He predicted it would quickly pass, as long as senators don’t add any amendments.

“We have an agreed-to process right now and if that happens, we’ll send the president a bill by the end of next week,” DeLay said.

Democrats note that all of the pending bills take aim at trial lawyers -- one of Bush’s favorite rhetorical targets. Political strategists also note that trial lawyers are a major source of campaign contributions for Democratic candidates.

“It creates a competitive disadvantage in a global economy, for the American economy to have so many lawsuits,” Bush said Tuesday in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club.

“It imposes unfair costs on job creators. It raises prices for consumers. Our legal system must serve the cause of justice, not the interests of trial lawyers,” Bush said.

Even Democrats who oppose the bill acknowledge that some abuses take place, but they insist that the president discounts real transgressions by corporations. They argue that most plaintiffs are ordinary folk with few resources, so their only way to get legal representation is to allow lawyers to use part of the damages for their fees.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday that Democrats would work to retain consumer protections in subsequent legislation.

Frist said Republicans would likely next push for changing the laws for corporate and personal bankruptcy, followed by a measure to create a fund to compensate victims of asbestos litigation while limiting future claims.

During the Senate’s debate, supporters of the class-action bill recounted story after story of suits where lawyers made millions in fees but plaintiffs received little or nothing in compensation -- in many cases, just coupons from manufacturers toward a future purchase.

Carlton Carl, spokesman for the Assn. of Trial Lawyers, said that lawyers wouldn’t be hurt by the bill because they could always chose which cases they took. Consumers, on the other hand, often had no recourse unless a lawyer was willing to take their case.

“Trial lawyers are just surrogates for American families whose rights Sen. Frist and President Bush would like to take away to enhance the rights of drug, tobacco, insurance and chemical industries, among others,” Carl said.

One Republican leadership aide insisted the string of bills is not aimed solely at lawyers.

“It just so happens that the trial lawyers have been gaming the system over the last several years. But I don’t think that the momentum is coming now just because of trial lawyers,” the aide said.

Times staff writer Mary Curtius contributed to this report.