Fortune's Son: The New York Times has a lengthy examination of John Edwards' trial work that reveals a good deal about the man's motivation, and that of most personal injury lawyers:
An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards. (emphasis mine)
Edwards rarely accepted cases in which a baby died during delivery (which, according to the article only bring in around $500,000 a case), preferring instead to concentrate on the multi-million-dollar-yiedling cerebral palsy cases.
We can say good-bye to what the Times refers to as "what they call tort reform" if Edwards is elected, that's for sure:
Mr. Edwards's former colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar certainly support his candidacy. His campaign is disproportionately financed by lawyers and people associated with them, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which calculates that about half of the $15 million he has raised comes from lawyers. People associated with Baron & Budd, a Dallas law firm noted for its work on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos cases, contributed $77,250, the largest amount, the center found.
Mr. Edwards has declined to discuss his fees as a lawyer or the size of his personal fortune. Senate disclosure forms suggest that he is worth anywhere from $12 million to $60 million.
That one of the country's biggest asbestos litigation firms - an area of litigation that abuses the legal system for profit even more than birth injury litigation - is his top donor should give anyone with an interest in truth and justice pause.
Despite widespread use of fetal heart rate monitors and increasing reliance on Cesarean sections to avoid complications, the rates of cerebral palsy have remained the same. It's a condition whose origin lies in multiple factors, many of which happen in utero long before delivery. Which is why those who are truly motivated by altruism rather than profit want to set up a fund for all children with brain injuries:
Some say that the biggest losers in litigation over brain-damaged babies are the parents of children whose cases are rejected by lawyers.
"For the one or two who got a substantial jury verdict," said George W. Miller Jr., a former state representative in North Carolina who practices law in Durham, "there were 99 that did not get anything, either because they were not able to finance litigation or their claim was questionable."
"The real issue," Mr. Miller added, "is who knows what causes these kinds of medical problems?"
He said he planned to bring up the issue of compensation with a state commission that is studying medical malpractice. One approach would be to limit awards and create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly afflicted children.
This is not the first time Mr. Miller has championed the idea. In 1991, his legislation to create such a fund was defeated, in large part by the state's trial lawyers. Among those who spoke out against the bill was Mr. Edwards, who called it a baby tax.
Odd that a Democratic politician would be opposed to a tax, especially one designed to help the weak and downtrodden.
No doubt about it, it would be wrong.
