'Frivolous' Suits Could Be Costly

The House has approved a bill that would take away lawyers' licenses if they repeatedly file lawsuits deemed to be frivolous.

Supporters of the bill, which passed Thursday in a 228-184 vote, say lawsuits deemed baseless by a judge for flimsy facts or faulty interpretations of the law are a waste of court time and often a bonanza for lawyers - rather than a chance to recoup legitimate damages for clients.

Opponents say the legislation would deter more than rogue lawyers. People with legitimate complaints against big companies could be scared off by a provision that would require judges to order the plaintiffs in lawsuits found to be frivolous to pay "reasonable" attorney fees of the defendants.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said that if a single plaintiff loses to a big corporation that employs multiple attorneys charging high fees, "'reasonable attorney fees' is going to add up to a lot of money."

The White House calls the measure – which still needs Senate approval - "a step in the right direction" toward eradicating bogus lawsuits.

No Senate vote is expected this year.

Insurance premiums and health care costs have risen as a result of frivolous lawsuits, argued Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the bill's sponsor.

"All they want is for the defendant to settle," Smith said of the lawyers for such plaintiffs. "This is legalized extortion."

The House bill would reinstate a pre-1993 rule setting mandatory penalties against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. It would suspend for a year lawyers who are deemed to have filed three baseless claims in any judicial circuit during their careers.

Opponents of the proposed law say frivolous lawsuits have no tangible effect on insurance premiums. Some, like Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., argue the bill could deter legitimate labor, environmental or discrimination lawsuits.

"The Republican leadership doesn't care much about these issues," Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., said as the House debate opened.

The American Bar Association says the measure would infringe on states' rights by setting policy in state as well as federal courts.

The bill was approved by the House last year, 229-174, but did not come up for a vote in the Senate. An end-of-year crush of spending bills and other matters also make a Senate vote unlikely this year.

The House by voice vote added an amendment sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., that allows sanctions to be imposed for the destruction of certain documents in federal court cases. The amendment also clarifies the anti-forum-shopping provision by saying that if there is no state court in the county in which the injury occurred, the case can be brought in the nearest county where a general court is located.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sets policy for the federal judiciary, opposes the bill. In a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee, the judicial group said the Smith bill would "not help deter litigation abuses" but would increase "litigation, costs and delays."

The conference also says the legislation would return the courts to a system that required penalties for every violation of the rule and "spawned thousands of court decisions and generated widespread criticism."

The American Trial Lawyers Association, in outlining its opposition to the bill, points out that judges already have the power to impose a variety of sanctions on lawyers and law firms involved in frivolous cases. On its web site, the ATLA says the House bill would " force litigants to operate under terms that were used to punish and deter valid claims of discrimination."

The bill approved Thursday by the House is the third piece of legislation in a larger campaign by Republicans to limit lawsuits.
Previous bills approved give lawsuit protections to gun manufacturers – a measure signed into law this week – and prohibit the suing of food companies for obesity blamed on their products. The food bill has yet to gain Senate approval.