The Los Angeles Times has a good investigative series this week about the "tort reform" movement, and in particular its use of bogus or exaggerated anecdotes, and the reference to inflated jury awards, to argue its case to the public. The corporate lobby, for example, often mentions the lady-who-spilled-coffee-and-sued as an example of how the system has run amok, without mentioning some other telling details (such as the third degree burns the lady suffered when she spilled the caffeinated magma over her lap). Even worse, it will refer to high jury awards without mentioning that the verdict was later overturned, or the award reduced, on appeal. Due to the prevailing bias against lawyers, the public (and more importantly in this case, the media) buy stories that are as factual as letters to the Penthouse Forum.

As long as we're on this point, why exactly should even the most frivolous, bad faith awards be detrimental to the economy? It's not as if the money leaves the country or disappears; it simply goes from one sector, corporations, to another, consisting of consumers. The ambulance-chasees, as it were, then spend their ill-gotten gains on items such as housing, food, and various consumer items, boosting the economy. The price of goods may theoretically increase to accomodate the higher legal costs, but if more consumers have more money to spend, what's the problem? Why is it more important to protect Exxon or Phillip Morris from boneheaded juries than it is to protect consumers from the same?