By FITSNews || First of all, let’s go ahead and state the obvious: There is no such thing as a “neutral” party in politics, and anybody who says otherwise … well … that person is either lying to you or trying to separate you from the contents of your wallet.
Or more likely, both.
Neutral, non-partisan, unbiased … these are all meaningless words that politicians and special interest groups pull out of their backsides when they want to validate the various particulars of their left-leaning agendas. Of course in most cases, these status quo types at least undertake a token effort to make it look like the “neutral” party is capable of seeing both sides of an issue (even though they’re obviously not).
No such effort was undertaken by the S.C. Senate last week, however, when it debated one of the key provisions of a new business-friendly tort law.
In fact, the so-called “neutral” analyst selected to advise legislators on the new tort law was almost as big of a “leaner” as the three trial lawyer-legislators sitting on the panel – each of whom rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from keeping South Carolina’s legal climate as unfriendly as possible.
Who was the “neutral” analyst?
F. Patrick Hubbard – a former trial lawyer who serves as the Ronald L. Motley distinguished professor of tort law at the University of South Carolina.
And who’s Ron Motley?
Only the King of the Shysters, people – the preeminent plaintiffs’ attorney in South Carolina and one of the top sharks in the nation (although, we’d like to make clear – a silver medalist to Sic Willie in the “hot local news anchor Olympics”).
Anyway, Hubbard’s testimony was – hold your breath – an impassioned defense of the status quo and a scathing criticism of the proposed tort laws, which among other reforms would bring South Carolina in line with the rest of Southern states when it comes to capping punitive damages.
Of course, the fact that Hubbard was spitting out the trial lawyer talking points wasn’t at all surprising seeing as he was overheard chatting it up with S.C. Trial Lawyers leader Mike Hemlepp just prior to his “testimony.”
“Good to talk with you yesterday and thank you for coming,” Hemlepp reportedly said to Hubbard.
Hmmm …
It’s also not surprising seeing as the USC Law School has served as the voice for the status quo in our legal system for years. In fact, every USC law school professor we’ve ever heard testifying in these hearings has a bias towards protecting that status quo. That’s par for the course in South Carolina, though, as everybody knows the dirty little secret of South Carolina’s “GOP-controlled” legislature is that liberal special interests have been pulling the strings behind the scenes for years.
Seriously, people … you wonder why we have such crappy laws? And as a result, such a crappy business climate?
This is why …
Of course as wrong as it is for a Senate subcommittee to trot out a trial lawyer shill as a “neutral” expert, neither Hubbard (nor subcommittee chairman Larry Martin) is really to blame here.
Nope … that would be ethically-challenged lawmakers like Sen. Brad Hutto (D – Orangeburg) and Luke Rankin (RINO – Myrtle Beach), who continue to use their influence to protect their own bottom line – at the expense of yours.
As long as lawyer-legislators who are making “bank” because of our state’s crappy laws are allowed to drive the legislative process, real reform that improves our underlying business climate is going to be a long time coming …
Oh, and electing another trial lawyer shill as governor won’t help, either.
By Concerned Businessman February 15, 2010 at 9:58 am
This is the type of “inside baseball” that drives voters crazy. This must stop. It is time for the Senate to start focusing on creating jobs and stop protecting special interest groups such as the trial lawyers.
By Recovering Lobbyist February 15, 2010 at 10:02 am
Luke Rankin is still in the Senate? What is in the water in Horry County?
By Is This April Fools Day? February 15, 2010 at 10:04 am
How can this professor be neutral?
Also, what does a law professor know about creating private sector jobs and running a business?
This is completely insane. Please tell me this is just an early April Fools Day joke.
By We need fairness in this debate February 15, 2010 at 10:12 am
How about a little fairness in this process?
Why not have a Department of Commerce official serve as a neutral expert to the Senate?
It is my understanding that this tort reform bill is designed to improve the economic climate in our state. Therefore, the Department of Commerce should have a role.
By Sir Big Spur February 15, 2010 at 10:18 am
Sir Big Spur, the defender of all things USC, refuses to defend this non-sense!!!!
This is wrong. Sounds like something they would do at Chapel Hill.
By Sicster February 15, 2010 at 10:27 am
Only one problem…your house should be leaning left!
By Gillon February 15, 2010 at 10:40 am
Wow, so lawyers testify to protect their turf and profits. That’s a real news flash. (And I am certainly not defending lawyers.) But how is that any different from bankers, doctors, insurance company executives, realtors, or the myriad of other professions who bring forth “experts ” to promote their point of view? In a democratic, capitalist system, isn’t it “who can get their snout in the trough when feeding time comes?” And I would hardly confine these “special interests’ to all being “liberal” ones, no more than I would say that the legislative branch alone has a monopoly on “ethically-challenged” people. A step forward might be term limits, stricter limits on lobbyists, and campaign finance reform,
By Crash February 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Gillon hit the nail on the head. The only reason that this is an “issue” now is because its being currently driven by the Chamber of Commerce and their lobby.
By stimulus guy February 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Tort reform is another way to say we are going to put an arbitrary limit on money awards that has nothing to do with how much damage someone has done. Why can we just let the punishment fit the crime? It is the jury, not the lawyers, that hand down the verdict.
By Crooner February 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm
It’s not about protecting trial lawyers. It’s about protecting South Carolinians who are going to be injured by the negligence of others and through no fault of their own. Trial lawyers must stand up for them as the future injured don’t know they someday will be.
I am proud to be a trial lawyer with a national practice. And I can tell you that the tort law in SC is in line with that in the majority of states. There are very few large verdict awards here as compared to more favorable jurisdictions such as WV, IL, MS, and NYC.
There is also no correlation between tort law and per capita income.
By Weighing In February 15, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Patrick Hubbard is a professor of law and I understand was brought in by the Senate to give his impression of the law and how it would have a “real world” effect. You can’t just go changing laws because it “sounds good”, you have to examine how they really work.
For example, the group that is pushing this and their attorney…wait for it… Butch Bowers, Esq. of Hall and Bowers fame, of Mark Sanford’s attorney fame, drafted a bill that is so poorly written that it wouldn’t stand up to the first legal challenge (regardless of whether you agree w/ the law or not).
If you actually read the bill, it looks like some cut and paste project for a undergrad con law 101 class. Remind me not hire this firm to “draft” any documents.
By Jack February 15, 2010 at 1:22 pm
This column is completely dishonest. Just because Prof. Hubbard is the Ronald L. Motley distinguished professor of tort law, does not tie him in any way to Ron Motley. Ronald L. Motley funded a chair at the Law School. For those of you who do not understand what that means, you make a large charitable contribution to a college or university to support its operations and they name something after you. Professor Hubbard was at USC long before Ron Motley made his generous contribution to higher education in this state, and is in no way beholden to Ron Motley.
If any of the insurance companies want to fund a chair at the University, I assure you the University will take the money and they can have a State Farm distinguished professor of Torts. I can’t believe the editors of this site do not understand that, so either you are being intentionally dishonest or playing to the intelligence level of your audience, I’m not sure which, but given the comments I am beginning to suspect the latter.
The Senate asked the opinion of a recognized authority on tort law for his opinion on legislation effecting tort law in this state. Who would you have them ask? Oh, let me guess. The insurance industry has a long list of people they know to be independent.
By Weighing In is Red Bank Bar! February 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm
After reading numerous comments posted by “Weighing In”, it has been determined that he is the new, improved version of Red Bank Bar.
Y’all remember him?
Here’s a reminder
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/11/22/meet-red-bank-bar/
By Commen Sense Needed February 15, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Jack,
As a USC grad, let me tell you, this looks bad.
You can try to explain it all you want. It gives an appearance of impropriety.
By Ricky Bobby February 15, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Weighing In is Red Bank Bar!,
Sounds to me like another FITS News plant to make comments.
By Weighing In February 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm
For a list of other endowed chairs at USC, please go here:\
http://www.sc.edu/provost/endowedchairs.shtml
Jack hit the nail on the head. It doesn’t matter if that were the State Farm Chair for insurance law or Nike Chair for Sports Management. The qualifications are listed here. Without the private funding, many of these chairs, the research would never be performed.
If Will Folks wanted to fund the Will Folks MSM Can KMA Endowed Chair for Mass Communications, they would gladly take his money and I assure you the professor wouldn’t become some pawn of FITS, Will, or any other entity.
By No Way! February 15, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Jack is full of dodo!
As a faculty member at a South Carolina School, I can tell you that when a big donor comes to the table to fund an endowed chair, they often also suggest the person they want to fill it. Now Jack, how many times would they say no when that kind of money is on the table? Get for real!!
Can’t pull the wool over my eyes, I see it happen all the time!
By No Way! February 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
P.S. Jack, if Charmin comes up with some money, you will be first in line for their endowed chair (or toilet)!
By Thank You, No Way! February 15, 2010 at 8:48 pm
No Way,
I agree with you. Jack is way off-base with his comments. Professor Hubbard cannot be seen as impartial in this debate when Ron Motley endowed his chair.
USC and the Senate made a big mistake in allowing him to serve as a neutral expert in the tort reform hearings.
By Martha Washington February 16, 2010 at 12:40 am
“…As long as lawyer-legislators…are allowed to drive the legislative process, real reform that improves our underlying business climate is going to be a long time coming …”
DON’T YOU DARE FORGET that US Senator Lindsey Graham was one of only two to vote AGAINST federal TORT REFORM.
In July 2003, the Senate failed to achieve cloture to act on the Patients First Act of 2003 by a vote of 49-48. The vote went down party lines with every democrat favoring the trial lawyers and every Republican favoring the medical professionals; except for two. Senator Richard Shelby and guess who? Senator Graham! Remember, Graham was a trial lawyer.
Who needs enemies with friends like that?
By Rick February 16, 2010 at 8:44 am
Tell ya what, limit trial lawyers to 10% of compensation awarded by the jury and see a change in the number of cases. Be allowed to go back to recollect awards on John Edwards “Morning sickness” lawsuit and watch lawyers suddenly decide that being honest has value. Until the “tort lawyers” are included in the solution, we will continue to have the issues. Don’t remember how much Edwards got for his little drama, but the courts need to take back the money and make the manufacturer whole again. As long as most Americans think with their hearts instead off their heads, we’ll have outrageous awards and an abundance of lawyers looking to feed at the detriment of society as a whole. Watch what they do….not what they say. Lawyer…Liar….not an appreciable difference.
By Weighing In February 16, 2010 at 10:58 am
Amazing Rick! What a bozo you must be. Everyone wants capitalism, yet wants to limit attorney fees. Guess what, if one attorney charges 33% and the other 29% you have a choice. In most cases, unless you have money, the average South Carolinian cannot afford an attorney. Most attorney fat cats like those attorneys at Nelson Mullins (formerly Mr. Bowers form) knock down between 250k to a million a year…by what?? charging folks by the hour. Now, what average citizen can pay Mr. Bowers average 250 per hour rate? Oh yeah, the Luv Guv Sanford can, but with what? Not even his own money, he used campaign contributions to pay Hall and Bowers $185,000 to defend actions that he was admittedly guilt of
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/100114001/Mark-Sanford-paid–185-000-in-legal-fees-from-campaign
Now, without contigency fees, where does the average Joe Six Pack go? If some of you posters had your way, these folks would end up on the taxpayer tab for medicaid and disability. One thing doctors, hospitals, and health insurance companies love to leave out of these debates is that lawyers (especially plaintiffs)are required to pay back lien holders. Lawyers serve as bill collectors for these entities, and without them, do any of your really think that the local hospital would ever recover the $10,000 that Joe Six Pack owes?
By Justice C. Kerr February 16, 2010 at 11:16 am
Will how much did you pay your lawyer to defend you when you were accused of a crime? If you really want to limit lawyers’ fees to protect business, shouldn’t you also want to limit them in cases where people are accused of committing crimes? Business commit torts every day. That’s not the same as a crime, but if you’re the victim of a business or an insurance company that is wanting to screw you, it’s hard to tell the difference. You, along with the other lawyer haters, are a hypocrite and a moron.
By fitsnews February 16, 2010 at 11:24 am
hahahaha …
Sic Willie has legions of attorneys on speed dial WORD UP.
-FITS
By Crooner February 16, 2010 at 11:43 am
Rick:
So a jury is competent to decide whether or not someone should be put to death, but not competent to decide liability and fair compensation for the injured? And you’d limit the amount attorneys representing the injured will be compensated but allow attorneys representing defendants to charge whatever the market will bear? Sounds real fair.
But actually, I know your type. You’ll be the first to want to sue someone “for everything he’s got” when you’re on the short end of the stick.
By Neocon Idiots March 5, 2010 at 2:01 am
Hypocrisy. Its funny how you fail to mention that Bobby Harrell happens to work for an insurance company(as do numerous other congressman). This bill is just another BAILOUT for the insurance industry (they are the ones in 99% of cases that pay for punitive damages). This bill is like a tax break for the insurance industry, but instead of taxing income, they are taxing consumer rights for that extra money. Furthermore, we as SC taxpayers will have to pay more taxes via court costs, because now Yankee insurance companies will have enough leverage to fight just about every case that comes its way. Oh, and don’t forget the money from the punitive damages that would have gone into the SC steam of commerce now gets to stay up north in Ohio and New York (where a majority of insurance companies are located)
This bill hurts the citizens of SC. Under this bill, if a company intentionally makes an unsafe product that say, kills your grandmother, they can do so as long as they make more than (350k X the number of successful lawsuits). There are numerous instances of this happening (see Ford Pinto(incinerated passengers), Remmington Rifles (misfired 50% of the time), and now Toyota (keep on accelerating),where the company knew of the problem, yet failed to fix it because keeling it going it was too profitable. The only thing that stops them from continuing to make the product, are large punitive damages. 350k is a drop in the bucket for large companies (or those that insure them). Your grandmother, being old, has little income or lifespan to accumulate significant actual damages, so again, punitive damages would be the only disincentive for such companies to make unsafe products.
You neocons are quite amusing. You will throw away your rights at the drop of a hat as long as it is in the name of business. You will let SC citizens decide whether to put a man to death, put not whether to punish a corporation. The funny thing is, is that this bill will not help SC business in any way. Look at the damn numbers. Last year there were only 7 punitive damage cases in SC, and 5 of them were LESS than 7k. This bill just helps Bobby Harrel’s insurance buddies and screws SC citizens.
Finally, Professor Hubbard is damn brilliant, and you should be ashamed for trying to tarnish his credibility. He is testifying because maybe HE SPENDS MORE TIME STUDYING THE ISSUE THAN ANYONE IN THE STATE. He is no longer a trial lawyer, so he stands to make nothing from testifying on the thing he has spent a good deal of his life studying. Unbelievable!