Email to consumer protection professionals

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: _______________
Sent: 5/__/2011 _______.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: Expand role of consumer protection agencies; reduce role of plaintiffs' lawyers

Dear ______________,

I am a citizen advocate. I have been on a wending path that has led me to serial encounters with, among others, law professors, lawmakers, business ethics professionals, judges, and state attorneys general. This path is laid out in my blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers.

I have progressed to contacting consumer protection organizations and professionals.

More particularly, I am, in the consumer protection arena, advocating in favor of the expansion of the roles of state attorneys general and other governmental consumer protection agencies, and a reduction in the role of plaintiffs' lawyers. My reasons for this advocacy are indicated at length in my article Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics?

I have identified you as prominent in the consumer protection arena and am contacting you to solicit dialogue with you concerning my advocacy and the analysis and argumentation I advance in support of my position.

If you think my advocacy raises interesting questions for your consideration, and you would be willing to indulge me in discussion about the same, I would love to hear from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

SEC whistleblower rules

The SEC proposed whistleblower rules pursuant to Dodd Frank in November. These have drawn many comments and presented a public forum in which to make argumentation related to plaintiffs' lawyers. I submitted comments on December 28, 2010 and January 3, 2011.

Tortdeform

I have discovered some anti-tort reform websites. I am trying to engage in discussion and debate with their purveyors. The first one I have done is Tortdeform.

I left the below comments at this link on Tortdeform: http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/05/work_it_wednesday_1.html#comments

Comments

Kia, would you kindly comment on this article of mine: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-thought-this-would-be-effective-email.html.
Thank you.
Posted by: Robert Shattuck May 7, 2009 03:51 AM

I am sorry. The link in the first comment does not work because a period got stuck at the end. Try this: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-thought-this-would-be-effective-email.html

Posted by: Robert Shattuck May 7, 2009 03:59 AM

Intellectuals and courage

I came across an essay by Professor John Lachs of Vanderbilt University, entitled Intellectuals and Courage, that I found very a propos of some of the experience I have had that is recorded in this blog and which you can find at D. Law Professors and at F. Ethics Organizations. I contacted Professor Lachs and asked him whether it was ok for me to publish and make use of his essay in my blog. Professor Lachs said it was ok, and you may find his essay here: Intellectuals and Courage.

Our lawmakers and politicians

Responsibility for our civil liability system and the tolerance of plaintiffs' lawyers predations on society ultimately lies with our lawmakers. They are unfortunately generally corrupt and pathetic. Nonetheless they have to be turned to. This presidential election year is another appropriate time for doing this. I will proceed to do so.

Tort reform organizations and their efforts

Take a look at Point of Law's listing of tort reform organizations. There are lot of organizations doing a lot of work in the field. What is their effectiveness? How could they be more effecive? What additional contribution could a little guy like me make?

Quantification of societal costs

If the civil liability system ill serves societal purposes, and it is grossly exploited by the lawyers to enrich themselves, how does one calculate the economic costs to the society in order to try to quantify the magnitude of the problem?

This is an important question and probably not one that is easy to answer. In some sense, I am asking about "excess" or "unjustified" costs, and it would take an economist or two to come up with an appropriate defintion for "excess" or "unjustified," and who knows what kind of data assembly and analysis is needed to make estimates using the definitions in question.

For the time being, I will be free wheeling and speculative and say $250 billion a year.

A next question is, once there is some quantification, how much of a collective motivation is there for the body politic to strongly desire change? If $250 billion a year is a reasonable estimate, I think that amount makes determined efforts worthwhile.

Starting this blog

I think I am getting close to a break through with the work I have done in 2007 with academics and professionals who work in the business ethics domain. F. Ethics organizations After I completed that work that is now indicated in this blog, I have, however, been at a loss as to the next step to take. I decided to start this blog as a next step.

2007 work on business ethics front

The preponderance of my efforts in 2007 has been to try to get the attention of ethics organizations, journals, academics, and corporate ethics officers. I tried numerous approaches. Let me reveal some of these in posts succeeding this post under the label F. Ethics organizations

What I have learned

A first main question is whether I (and other tort reform proponests) are basically right and the extent to which we are right about the civil liability system ill serving societal interests and the need for changes to improve significantly how such societal interests are being served.

In all my efforts I have not been able to elicit any respectable intellectual debate from the plaintiffs' lawyers side. I tried to draw out law professors in such debate, but could not do so. I have yet to find any such respectable debate. To me, this is significant evidence that I (and other tort reformeres) are basically right.

Any reader of this blog can try to decide for him or herself whether I (and other tort reformers) are basically right.

On the premise that I (and other tort reformers) are basically right, here are things I have learned.

The legal profession's priorities are first to serve its own economic interests and, in a pervasive and entrenched way, will take action to try to serve those interests and not society's interests when there is a conflict between the two.

In the realm of legislation and lobbying, the legal profession is just another "special interest" group, and a very powerful one at that.

Many judges either don't understand how the civil liability system ill serves balanced societal interests or they understand but are willing to support and advance the lawyers' interests against societal interests.

Legislators succumb to the blandishments and campaign contributions of the lawyers just as they do with other special interest, and legislators repeatedly fail to fulfill properly their obligations to evaluate societal interest and pass laws that advance societal interests and instead continue with their service to special interests.

There is an elitism, snobbism and a type of narrow mindedness in law professors and other academics that results in their unwillingness to lend their names and expertise to public pronouncements that could be helpful to citizens in their formulating their views about tort reform and trying to take action based on such view.

Specific cases I have taken time to write about

In the course of the past couple of years, I have taken the time and effort to write about specific legal cases which I think exemplify egregious exploitation and abuse by plaintiffs' lawyers.

These include Enron, two cases in which I was a member of the plaintiff class in a class action lawsuit, and a current Tyco class action lawsuit.

See label "J. Particular legal cases."

State legislatures

In September 2005 I started emailing "Plaintiffs' Lawyers Are an Impediment To Business Ethics" to individual members of judiciary committees of the state Houses of Representatives and the state Senates. I proceeded alphabetically through the states and petered out after doing Mississippi.

My second stroke of genius (or so I thought)

I contend that the mode of compensation of plaintiffs' lawyers drives them to hold innocent persons liable, because the persons who are actually culpable of a wrongdoing are too few, and do not have deep enough pockets, for the plaintiffs' lawyers to get the compensation they seek. I further contend that this going after innocent parties has a counterproductive effect that it distracts society from going after the culpable persons, would be wrongdoers see the opportunity of shunting off to innocent parties the fiancial costs and punishments if their wrongoing is discoverd, they see short term gain for themselves in engaging in the wrongdoing, and they opt for engaging in the wrongdoing.

I saw the foregoing phenomenon as undermining the inculcation and practice of ethical business behavior by employees of corporations.

I thought I would contact ethics journals, organizations and academics and corporate ethics officers with my ideas.

See F. Ethics professionals

I had a brief fling with state attorney generals

See label "E. State attorney generals"

My stroke of genius (I thought)

I have a tendency to keep pushing forward, building on what I have done. Not being successful with the emailing I had done to law professors, the idea came to me that I would draft a "position" letter for law professors (who agreed with the letter) to sign for submission to The Wall Street Journal for publication. I had previously seen letters on important issues of the moment (legal, economic, etc.) where professors having expertise on the subject matter jointly signed a "position" letter that was published in The Wall Street Journal. It seemed that, in the 2004 election campaign, tort reform was then such an issue that was meritorious for tort or consititional law professors to express views on.

This led me to this second round of emailing to law professors.

Law professors

I next started emailing law professors. D. Law Professors

Tort reform organizations

There are numerous national and state tort reform organizations. Ideally these organizations make their advocacy on behalf of the citizens who ultimately have balanced interests on both sides of the tort reform debate, both as possibly being injured plaintiffs seeking justice and compensation and also as consumers, employees, insureds, investors and taxpayers who collectively bear the costs and burdens of litigation against corporations, insurance companies, doctors, and governments.

There are also trade organizations that seek tort reform, but that come with a bias in favor of business, doctors, accountants, or insurance companies.

Contemporaneously with my emailing to newspapers, I started emailing to medical associations and chambers of commerce along the lines of the following:

"Dear Dr. __________ [this being form that went to medical associations],

"I am citizen who believes that plaintiffs' lawyers are inflicting great damage on our country.

"I believe that the presence of John Edwards on the Democratic ticket should bring to the fore this important issue of the harm and danger of plaintiffs' lawyers.

"I am writing letters to editors of newspapers in North Carolina [this email goingto a medical association in North Carolina] and elsewhere asking them to give a good airing in their pages of this topic during the next three months.

"I am writing this email to you by reason of your position and connection to North Carolina and other medical associations that are laboring to bring about medical malpractice reform.

"Can you put me in touch with any association officers or others who might be able to lend assistance in trying to get North Carolina newspapers and other media to give good airing about why the plaintiffs' lawyers are so detrimental to our society?

"Thank you very much."

I got a some response from medical associations and chambers of commerce, but nothing that went anywhere.

I started with newspapers

I kicked things off in the beginning of August 2004 by emailing to newspapers. My initial form of email to newspapers was this, that I sent to upwards of 200 newspapers:

"Dear [name, if I had a name, or Sir or Madam, if not],

"I believe that the presence of John Edwards on the Democratic ticket should bring to the fore the important issue of the damage that plaintiffs' lawyers are doing to our country. I hope the [name of newspaper] will give a good airing in its pages of this subject in the next three months.

"I don't think you will have any difficulty in finding resources on the plaintiff's lawyers issue, but I offer that I am available if you would like to help provide input regarding this subject.

"Thank you.

"[my name, address and telephone number]"

After about ten days of sending out the foregoing email, and receiving minimal response, I ratcheted up the tone of my newspaper email and started sending this form of email:

"Dear _________________,

"I am a citizen who believes that plaintiffs' lawyers are perpetrating an egregious travesty on our society and legal system. I believe that the presence of John Edwards on the Democratic ticket should bring to the fore the important issue of the damage that plaintiffs' lawyers are doing to our country. I hope [name of newspaper]will give a good airing in its pages of opposing viewpoints on this subject in the next two and a half months.

"I have written strong opinions against plaintiffs' lawyers in the past and append two of my past writings below. I offer my assistance if your newspaper wishes to endeavor to solicit from various parties, such as tort reform groups, bar associations, and law professors, written statements of their positions for publication in your newspaper.

"Please contact me if I can be of help.

"Thank you."

Why I feel so strongly about plaintiffs' lawyers

My problem with the plaintiffs' lawyers is that they are as selfish and greedy as any insurance company, any drug company, or any tobacco company, they are able to pursue their greed on behalf of injured parties who are natural objects of sympathy, and they exploit that natural sympathy and other circumstances to mold the civil liability system in a way that best serves their objective of maximizing the payment of legal fees to themselves and that ill serves the balanced objectives that society has in the functioning of its civil liability system. In short, the plaintiffs lawyers are very successful in fooling us into thinking they are on our side, when the only side they are on is their own.

What is my proof of that?

I hope to reveal my proof in the course of this blog.

Why I feel so strongly

I have great animosities about plaintiffs' lawyers, and I have great animosities about politicians. I probably do not have similar animosities about insurance companies, drug companies, or tobacco companies, or about corporate executive or doctor compensation. This calls for explanation of myself.

I consider myself a realist about human motivations, particularly selfishness and greed. They are pervasive facts of life that are operative in many fields and professions. They are worse in some places. I would not single out insurance companies, tobacco companies, or physicians for any special condemnation because persons in that industry or profession want to make money for themselves.

I think corporate executive compensation at the top level is higher than it should be, and a lot of back scratching goes on in the way directors approve huge compensation packages basically utilizing someone else's money. I have mentioned earlier the phenomenon of exploitation of situations where a few people get a little bit of money from many people that adds up to a lot in total, and it not being worth the time and effort of a single person who is one of the many people to object strongly. This phenomenon exists with corporate executive compensation, and I am supportive of trying to find ways to counteract the phenomenon.

Some people are greatly bothered by doctors or drug companies doing what they do in order to make money from it. I think this is unrealistic. As I said, I think I am a realist about human motivation, and it is socialistic pie in the sky to be searching for a health care industry or and insurance industry or a drug industry in which profit seeking motivations are less than in other business activities.

So, then, what is it about politicians and plaintiffs lawyers that so strongly arouses my animosities?

My answer is that it is the pretense of either of those categories of persons that their self-serving, self-interested motivations are any less than the self-serving, self-interested motivations of the rest of us, and their extreme dishonesty or hypocrisy in trying to present themselves otherwise.

Take the politicians. There many ways to get to sources of disgust here. Let me throw out a few.

The Congressional approval level is at about 20%. Wouldn't you think a self-respecting group of public servants would engage in collective soul searching about why the public has such a low opinion of them and collectively want to improve their standing and, if they are unable to do so, resign and let others try to do a better job as public servants? The short answer is they are not self-respecting, and they do not deserve the public's respect.

How about campaign finance reform legislation that has been passed? Isn't that basically a collective confession by Congress that they cannot be trusted to receive campaign contributions and at the same time properly carry out proper representation of their constituients' interests? A self-respecting Congressman ought to be able to announce public, "you cannot trust me, I will resign, and you need to try to elect a trustworthy person." Again, there are not self-respecting persons in Congress, and they do not deserve the public's respect, and only abysmal approval ratings.

The Republicans took a licking in 2006 in part because of earmarks and the corruption of earmarks. As best I can tell, the Democrats are clinging tightly to earmarks, trying to find ways to make the public think they are doing something about it, but finding backdoor ways to continue earmarks.

The main positive thing about the low ratings of Congress is at least the politicians are not very successful in trying to portray themselves as other than self-seeking and self-serving, with little or no genuine motivation to fulfill their roles as public servants.