Texas is often considered a national example for lawsuit reforms because—through 25 years of diligent work—we have successfully addressed many of the lawsuit abuses that plague other states. But one person’s example is another’s cautionary tale. At least, that’s what some Louisiana personal injury trial lawyers want you to believe. A fundraising pitch for the trial lawyer-backed governor of Louisiana, who is in a runoff for reelection against a business-minded candidate, spells it out: “Whether you represent plaintiffs or defendants, if the drastic tort reform efforts proposed by the opponents of Governor Edwards are enacted as law, the legal community will shrink dramatically, a fact that will impact all of us. If you do not believe me, call any attorney in Texas. Or should I say, call an insurance agent or used car salesman in Texas who used to practice law.” Never mind the fact that Louisianans pay the highest auto insurance rates in the nation because of out-of-control lawsuit abuse. As a local news station reported: “…Louisiana is more litigious than any other state. In 2016, lawyers filed 3,300 auto liability suits in Orleans Parish. That amount is higher than Miami and Austin. Factoring in population, the numbers are

Opioid litigation is prominently in the news these days, with a recent judgment in Oklahoma and the ongoing conflict between states and municipalities in the federal multi-litigation process conducted by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Ohio. As we have said before, we don’t have an opinion on who is responsible for the nation’s opioid epidemic, but we remain concerned that the wave of litigation will do little to stop it—just as the tobacco settlement of the 1990s did little to stem cigarette consumption. And we share the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s criticism of the Oklahoma ruling, which enormously expanded the real-property legal doctrine of a public nuisance to hold a pharmaceutical company liable for expenses related to the treatment of opioid misuse. The essential legal concept of a nuisance, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, is a “condition, activity, or situation (such as a loud noise or foul odor) that either injures the physical condition of adjacent land or interferes with its use or with the enjoyment of easements on the land or of public highways.” Liability might or might not arise from the situation, and the appropriate remedy is most often to require the landowner to abate

If you’ve been around the world of TLR for a while, you likely know by now that we are constantly studying how the lawsuit reforms that Texas has passed over the last 25 years are affecting our legal system, and in turn, the lives of Texans. We speak regularly with attorneys and judges who work with these laws every day. Sometimes the legislation is applied in ways that were never intended by lawmakers. When this happens, as was the case this session with the SLAPP law, we work with stakeholders to find a legislative solution that clarifies the legislation and addresses the misuse of the law. Other times, the reforms Texas passes are challenged in the course of litigation. When that happens, we stand ready to provide context and vigorously defend the intent and application of the legislation through amicus briefs. Amicus curiae is Latin and literally translates to “friend of the court.” These briefs are provided by people who are not party to a lawsuit, but have an interest in its outcome.  TLR has submitted many amicus briefs over the years, including in a lawsuit filed by storm-chasing lawyer Eric Dick after Hurricane Harvey. This cookie cutter lawsuit was

This week, a federal court jury convicted Rudy Delgado, a suspended justice on the Texas 13th Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi) of eight criminal charges stemming from his acceptance of bribes, violation of the Travel Act, and obstruction of justice when he was a state district judge.  After his indictment in February 2018, Delgado was suspended from his seat on the 93rd District Court by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Due to a technicality that prevented his name from being removed from the ballot, however, Delgado won election to a seat on the 13th Court of Appeals in November 2018. He was again suspended and is prohibited from serving in any judicial office. The fact that a judge under indictment for accepting bribes can run for higher office and win should be a major red flag for Texans. Delgado’s indictments were not a secret—they had been widely reported for months in the local news leading up to the 2018 elections. His opponent was an accomplished and well-known city attorney, former county attorney and former district court judge who serves as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. But unfortunately, many Texans simply don’t have enough knowledge about the

In the past few months, we’ve spoken often about the ubiquitous presence of legal services advertising on the airwaves. In addition to your standard car wreck and mesothelioma ads, ads targeting specific products, medications or medical devices are designed to catch people’s attention and compel them to take action (specifically, to call a lawyer). But recently, there’s been a turn of events in one advertising cottage industry. The New York Times reported last year on a widespread scheme targeting women with pelvic mesh implants. Using aggressive tactics, including cold calls to their homes and alarming advertising, the women were coaxed into having risky and often unnecessary surgical procedures to remove the mesh. According to the Times, these procedures made the women “more lucrative plaintiffs against medical device manufacturers.” The women were told they wouldn’t have to pay up front for the cost of the procedure, and that their lawsuit awards would cover their expenses, plus some. Many of the women suffered severe adverse reactions to the removal of the mesh, which is designed to adhere to tissue once it’s implanted. The procedures—which were often done quickly and at a surgical center in a strip mall—left them in extreme pain and

California has made quite a reputation for itself, and not in a good way. Case in point: the much ballyhooed addition of coffee to California’s recklessly broad Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65. The proposition “requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” Anyone can file a lawsuit alleging that a company has failed to warn consumers of their exposure to substances on the Prop. 65 list, and as the Wall Street Journal reports, in 2018 lawyers made more than $27.25 million from Prop. 65 settlements. So how did coffee— one of the most widely consumed beverages in America—land in Prop. 65’s crosshairs? According to the Journal, “In 2010 [Raphael] Metzger sued Starbucks and 90 other coffee manufacturers and distributors, claiming they failed to warn consumers about the cancer risks of acrylamide. Last year a Los Angeles Superior Court ordered the coffee companies to put cancer warnings on their beverages. Mr. Metzger sought as much as $2,500 in civil penalties for each cup of coffee they sold over at least a decade.” It took another regulation, which takes effect October 1, stating that coffee

We all know better than to double dip. It is the epitome of bad manners. Highly frowned upon. And if you’re a county official in Texas, it’s also illegal. But that didn’t stop one county attorney. According to the Southeast Texas Record, David Garcia, the Brooks County attorney, has signed a private contingency fee contract to represent Brooks County in an opioid lawsuit. Garcia and his law firm are named as co-counsel along with another firm that is involved in at least one other opioid lawsuit in the state. Under the terms of the contract, the private attorneys would receive 35 percent of any recovery the county is awarded, one of the highest percentage fees being paid by a local government in Texas for opioid representation. That fee is split 50/50 between the two firms. So, not only is Garcia continuing to draw his taxpayer-funded salary as Brooks County attorney, but under the contingency fee contract between his firm and the county, he is also entitled to receive 17.5 percent of any money the county recovers in the lawsuit. Therein lies the problem. The Record highlights this important provision of the Texas Local Government Code: “If a county officer is

While the U.S. marked the Memorial Day holiday, May 27 also marked the official end of the 86th Legislative Session. The Legislature adjourned sine die, having accomplished a number of important priorities for Texans, including several important reforms to the legal system. We’ll have a more thorough review of notable bills for you in the next Advocate, but until then, here’s an update on the status of some of TLR’s key bills. Gov. Abbott has until June 16 to sign or veto bills. Any legislation that he does not sign or veto becomes law without his signature. SENT TO THE GOVERNOR: Transparency in Local Government Contracting—House Bill 2826 This bill is one of TLR’s primary legislative priorities. It will ensure that local governments are transparent and open when entering into contingency fee contracts with attorneys. It also ensures that the local government keeps more of any legal settlement it may be awarded, rather than giving an exorbitant share of the recovery to the attorney. House bill author Rep. Greg Bonnen and Senate sponsor Joan Huffman devoted significant time to working with stakeholders to develop a bill that allows local governments to continue hiring contingency fee attorneys, while giving taxpayers the

We’ve shared with you a number of reforms the Texas Legislature is working on this legislative session to improve our legal system. Now with less than a month to go in the 86th Legislature, we’ve entered the point in session where bills begin moving, and moving quickly. Here’s an update on the status of where some of these important reforms stand in the process: Transparency in Local Government Contracting—House Bill 2826 This bill is one of TLR’s primary legislative priorities, and was passed by the Texas House of Representatives on May 2 with 103 votes. The bill implements important changes to ensure contingency fee legal contracts are transparent and open, and that the local government gets to keep more of any legal settlement it may be awarded. House bill author Rep. Greg Bonnen devoted significant time to working with stakeholders to develop a bill that allows local governments to continue hiring contingency fee attorneys, while giving taxpayers the transparency they expect any time a private attorney is hired to do the government’s work. It is now pending before the Senate, where Sen. Joan Huffman is the bill sponsor, and we are hopeful the Senate will concur on the House bill

Let us give you a scenario: A lawyer is caught bribing a judge with cash and other gifts in order to secure favorable decisions, such as dismissing criminal charges against the lawyer’s clients. This happened at least 20 times over the course of eight years. This kickback scheme is eventually exposed. The judge is charged with a federal offense and is awaiting trial, and has been kicked off the bench (although, in a mind-boggling turn of events, is allowed to remain on the ballot in the 2018 elections and wins a seat on the court of appeals). And the lawyer? You assume he’s been sent to jail, or at least lost his license to practice law. For one South Texas lawyer, that is not the case. According to an article in Texas Lawyer, Noe Perez (the attorney in question) was arrested and charged in May 2018 with conspiracy to commit bribery, to which he pleaded guilty. He’s awaiting sentencing for his crime. But in the meantime, he is still practicing law in the very courthouse where he was caught bribing a judge. This has rubbed some area lawyers the wrong way. From Texas Lawyer: “‘This is an ongoing source of