The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted a lawsuit issue that has increasingly become a problem in many states, including Texas: litigation against trucking companies. While it is not unusual for plaintiff attorneys to target trucking companies because of the companies’ insurance policies and assets, as the article notes, several factors have led to an increase in these lawsuits in recent years. At least one practice—used by lawyers in Texas and other states to refer potential clients for medical services—may expose the clients to “substantial risk” they may not fully appreciate. In the cases reported by the Journal, plaintiff’s lawyers refer their clients to cooperative healthcare providers who agree to provide medical care on credit, with the understanding that the provider will be paid from any settlement or judgment reached in the patient’s lawsuit against a person who allegedly caused his or her injury. The healthcare providers agree their medical services will not be billed through Medicare, private health insurance or another third-party payor. This allows the providers—who are cooperating with the plaintiff’s lawyers—to charge inflated rates and provide excessive treatments, all in a scheme to increase the damages sought in the plaintiff’s lawsuit. This can exponentially increase the “actual damages”

Texas judges are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The nature of our state’s partisan election system requires judges to raise money to run political campaigns to be elected or re-elected to a seat on the bench. Because judicial campaigns are lower profile than other races on the ballot, few voters know about the judges or are willing to make contributions to their campaigns. Instead, the natural constituency for judicial fundraising is attorneys and law firms. But the idea of judges raising money from lawyers who have appeared or might appear in their courtrooms leaves a bad taste in many Texans’ mouths.  By and large, Texas judges are impartial professionals. But even the appearance of this type of conflict can shake Texans’ faith in the fairness of our legal system.  Texas passed judicial campaign finance reform in 1995 to help ensure judicial campaigns are conducted fairly and ethically. Prior to these reforms, judges could raise unlimited amounts for their election campaigns. Today, individual and law firm contributions to judicial campaigns are limited and subject to detailed reporting requirements. Even with those regulations in place, Texas law firms continue to shell out big bucks to support judicial campaigns. Over

In case you missed it, native Texan and Academy Award winner Matthew McConaughey joined late night talk show host Jimmy Fallon last week for a taping in Austin. Fallon’s first question to McConaughey was, “you could live anywhere in the world if you wanted to. Why do you choose to live in Austin?”  In his answer, McConaughey touched on many of the things that make Texas the best place to live and work in the nation, such as our work ethic and diversity. But it’s what he said at 1:10 into his answer that caught our attention. “We do not chase lawsuits. No, we do not chase lawsuits.” We’ve long said that a fair legal system keeps our economy strong and our state exceptional. And we’re barraged with news articles every day of other states whose legal systems are a burden to job creation.  Mr. McConaughey, we couldn’t agree more. Keeping abusive lawsuits at bay is one of the things that has made the Lone Star State what it is today. And if you ask us, that’s alright, alright, alright.

Texas is facing a fundamental question: should Texans continue to elect judges, or is it time to move to a different method? Last session, the Texas Legislature created the 15-member Texas Commission on Judicial Selection with the express purpose of answering that question. With last week’s appointments to the commission by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House, the state is poised to take a close look at how we fill seats on our judiciary.   The 12 appointed commissioners join Wallace B. Jefferson, Thomas R. Phillips and Lynne Liberato, who were appointed by the Texas Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and State Bar of Texas. To put things into perspective as the commission begins to undertake its work, we thought it might be helpful to look at some numbers. Considering the state as a whole, Texans elect (or help elect) 39 federal officials—the president, two U.S. senators, and 36 members of Congress. Of course, not all of these offices are on the ballot each election year. At the same time, Texans elect 204 state executive and legislative branch officers—the governor, lieutenant governor, 31 state senators, 150 state House members, and others.  But then there is the

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