Showing posts with label E1a. Alabama lawmakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E1a. Alabama lawmakers. Show all posts
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Alabama State Sen. Blackwell; Rep. Carns
From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: sb@sladeblackwell.com, jwcarns@yahoo.com
Sent: 5/2/2013 7:52:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: The economy, plaintiffs' lawyers, and the Attorney General's office
Dear Senator Blackwell and Representative Carns,
I am a constituent of yours. I believe that certain class action and other "public" litigation that is pursued by plaintiffs' lawyers should instead be taken on by the state attorney general's office. I have written General Strange about this, per the below email. I hope you will read the email, and, if you are persuaded by what I say, you will employ your legislative offices to advance the objectives of my advocacy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Mountain Brook, AL 35223
From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: constitutentaffairs@ago.state.al.us
Sent: 4/29/2013 10:51:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: The economy, plaintiffs' lawyers, and the Attorney General's office
Dear Mr. Loftin,
Besides the specific matter I contacted the AG's office about recently, I have been making advocacy that class action and other "public" litigation that is pursued by plaintiffs' lawyers should instead be taken on by state AG offices.
I had some particular communications in 2011 with the AG's office about this, which communications you may find here in my blog. I am resuming on the this, including by contacting my Alabama state Senator and state Representative, and further contacting law school deans, and I want to let General Strange know about that.
In Birmingham, we are currently being inundated by TV commercials trolling for a variety of medical injury claims to prosecute, and billboard advertising by plaintiffs' lawyers seems to have increased.
Lots of struggling continues in the economy.. That includes lawyers struggling, which could explain the increased advertising.
The question for our lawmakers and for government prosecutors and regulators (such as the Attorney General), and for all the non-lawyer citizens, is whether societal interests are being properly served by everything the plaintiffs' lawyers do. Proposals for medical malpractice reform seem to be on the table constantly, and the debilitated state of the economy and the problems of governmental debt and deficit may be heightening the attention currently. See this report: States Debating Innovative Approaches to Medical Malpractice Reform | HealthFlock.
I don't know exactly where General Strange stands on this. I hope he and Alabama lawmakers are on the side of societal interests and not on the side of plaintiffs' lawyers interests.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Letter to Governor Bentley
From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: info@governor.alabama.gov
Sent: 3/23/2011 4:51:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: WEBSITE CONTACT governor.alabama.gov- tort reform bills
To: info@governor.alabama.gov
Sent: 3/23/2011 4:51:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: WEBSITE CONTACT governor.alabama.gov- tort reform bills
Dear Governor Bentley,
I am a retired lawyer (from the _______ law firm). I am a tort reform activist and have a blog How To Combat Plaintiffs' Lawyers.
I want to do what I can to make advocacy concerning the tort reform bills being considered in this legislative session of the Alabama legislature. I have posted this on my blog: Clarion call concerning AL legislative session and tort reform .
I have sent emails to Alabama Senators and Representatives that give links to the above blog entry. I have also emailed Alabama newspaper editors and reporters and chambers of commerce. I have further contacted the Deans of the Alabama and Cumberland law schools and solicited input from law professors on tort reform policy.If I can be of any service to your Administration in making advocacy about tort reform, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you.
Rob Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Clarion call concerning AL legislative session and tort reform
In the spring of 2011, Alabama citizens continue with great concern about the economy and their jobs and about the viability of governmental benefits and services they need. These concerns place stresses on state and local governments to perform in the best way possible to be a positive force in governing.
There are trade offs in governmental actions to address citizens' concerns. In the news currently are the large burdens of public employee pension and health benefits that many believe have gotten out of hand as the result of irresponsible actions and promises of politicians in the past, possibly unduly resulting from vote buying that is done by politicians. Cutting back the benefits will help state and local governments and also a majority of the citizens, but it will entail hardship for public employees. These are not easy choices.
The controversy about public employee beneifits is one upshot from the loud message that was sent in the 2010 elections that "business as usual" by politicians will not be tolerated and they need to do a better job in trying to help solve the country's problems at the federal, state and local levels. Soul searching by lawmakers is called for about putting the public's interest ahead of their own and not being corrupted by the campaign contributions of the special interests.
In that vein, the current session of the Alabama legislature provides an opportunity for lawmakers and the citizens to renew their evaluation of plaintiffs' lawyers and tort reform policy issues. The bills that are introduced and considered may be very narrowly focused. To try to figure out how to vote, the lawmakers ought to try to see the big picture on the policy issues involved. If they reach conclusions about the big picture, that can provide guidance about how to vote in the push/pull on narrowly focused "reform" bills.
This has been around for a long time. There have been ongoing tort reform efforts, and the plaintiffs lawyers have been relentless in trying to fend off, undermine and get around tort reform. That battle continues in the spring of 2011 in Montgomery.
It can be hoped that Alabama lawmakers will do a good job in considering and acting on tort reform bills that are introduced in the current legislative session. Ultimately, doing a good job means figuring out what is in the best interests of Alabama citizens. This is not black and white, there are trade offs, and lawmakers must parse through the contentions that may be made plaintiffs' lawyers, Chambers of Commerce, doctors, and others who have a special interest in the matter of tort reform.
The policy questions involved, and the arguments on those questions, are not simple.
One side of the argument is that class action and other civil litigation abusively impose unjustifiable costs and burdens on the economy, in order to enrich plaintiffs' lawyers and serve their interests.
The other side of the argument is that the costs and burdens are warranted for purposes of allowing proper compensation of harmed plaintiffs and also deterring wrongdoing.
To get information, there are several good books that state the case against plaintiffs' lawyers and in favor of tort reform. These include Walter Olson, The Rule of Lawyers; and Phillip Howard, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Death of Common Sense. Also, there are several good websites for information, such as Walter Olson's http://overlawyered.com/ and Ted Frank's Center For Class Action Fairness .
I have written several pieces that attempt to state the case against plaintiffs' lawyers, which can be found in this blog and which are linked here . I would particularly recommend ALABAMA SUPREME COURT-1994 and Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
There are trade offs in governmental actions to address citizens' concerns. In the news currently are the large burdens of public employee pension and health benefits that many believe have gotten out of hand as the result of irresponsible actions and promises of politicians in the past, possibly unduly resulting from vote buying that is done by politicians. Cutting back the benefits will help state and local governments and also a majority of the citizens, but it will entail hardship for public employees. These are not easy choices.
The controversy about public employee beneifits is one upshot from the loud message that was sent in the 2010 elections that "business as usual" by politicians will not be tolerated and they need to do a better job in trying to help solve the country's problems at the federal, state and local levels. Soul searching by lawmakers is called for about putting the public's interest ahead of their own and not being corrupted by the campaign contributions of the special interests.
In that vein, the current session of the Alabama legislature provides an opportunity for lawmakers and the citizens to renew their evaluation of plaintiffs' lawyers and tort reform policy issues. The bills that are introduced and considered may be very narrowly focused. To try to figure out how to vote, the lawmakers ought to try to see the big picture on the policy issues involved. If they reach conclusions about the big picture, that can provide guidance about how to vote in the push/pull on narrowly focused "reform" bills.
This has been around for a long time. There have been ongoing tort reform efforts, and the plaintiffs lawyers have been relentless in trying to fend off, undermine and get around tort reform. That battle continues in the spring of 2011 in Montgomery.
It can be hoped that Alabama lawmakers will do a good job in considering and acting on tort reform bills that are introduced in the current legislative session. Ultimately, doing a good job means figuring out what is in the best interests of Alabama citizens. This is not black and white, there are trade offs, and lawmakers must parse through the contentions that may be made plaintiffs' lawyers, Chambers of Commerce, doctors, and others who have a special interest in the matter of tort reform.
The policy questions involved, and the arguments on those questions, are not simple.
One side of the argument is that class action and other civil litigation abusively impose unjustifiable costs and burdens on the economy, in order to enrich plaintiffs' lawyers and serve their interests.
The other side of the argument is that the costs and burdens are warranted for purposes of allowing proper compensation of harmed plaintiffs and also deterring wrongdoing.
To get information, there are several good books that state the case against plaintiffs' lawyers and in favor of tort reform. These include Walter Olson, The Rule of Lawyers; and Phillip Howard, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Death of Common Sense. Also, there are several good websites for information, such as Walter Olson's http://overlawyered.com/ and Ted Frank's Center For Class Action Fairness .
I have written several pieces that attempt to state the case against plaintiffs' lawyers, which can be found in this blog and which are linked here . I would particularly recommend ALABAMA SUPREME COURT-1994 and Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?
I am not currently in a position to recommend good books or comprehensive law review articles that state the case in support of plaintiffs' lawyers and against tort reform. I have solicited and will continue to solicit from plaintiffs' lawyers and their supporters citations of books and articles that they recommend and will post such citations here if and when I receive them.
I consider the main argument in support of the plaintiffs' lawyers is that lawmakers and regulators are corrupted by special interest money and they fail in their fiduciary obligations to the citizens to pass laws and promulgate regulations that are a reasonable outcome of acceptable democratic processes that balance the interests all concerned parties.
I think law professors, business school professors and others in Alabama who have relevant expertise ought to be willing to provide their views to lawmakers about the policy questions at issue and the argumentation relative to the same. I have solicited this in the past and will do so again at this time. Judges, regulators, criminal prosecutors and the Alabama attorney general ought to be able to provide useful views too, and I will attempt to solicit that. Newspapers and television news departments should report on the subject matter.
The current Alabama legislative session presumably has many things on its plate to try to be a positive force in governance addressing the citizens' concerns about the economy and their jobs and the viability of government benefits and services. Tort reform issues are deserving of careful attention by Alabama lawmakers this spring. The bills that are introduced and considered may be very narrowly focused. To try to figure out how to vote, the lawmakers ought to try to see the big picture on the policy issues involved. If they reach conclusions about the big picture, that can provide guidance about how to vote in the push/pull on narrowly focused "reform" bills.
The current Alabama legislative session presumably has many things on its plate to try to be a positive force in governance addressing the citizens' concerns about the economy and their jobs and the viability of government benefits and services. Tort reform issues are deserving of careful attention by Alabama lawmakers this spring. The bills that are introduced and considered may be very narrowly focused. To try to figure out how to vote, the lawmakers ought to try to see the big picture on the policy issues involved. If they reach conclusions about the big picture, that can provide guidance about how to vote in the push/pull on narrowly focused "reform" bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)