Advocacy of tort reform Ted Frank

—frank, questioning class action system. may 2005.

in 2003, frank began contributing regularly overlawyered, legal weblog edited walter olson advocates tort reform; continued there through 2010.

frank joined american enterprise institute in 2005 when aei offered him fellowship research effects of class action fairness act. director of aei legal center public interest spoke , wrote civil justice issues , liability. frank sits on executive committee of federalist society s litigation practice group.

frank leading proponent tort reform in united states. according frank, became disillusioned @ class action tactics, , willingness of judges approve settlements felt poor consumers. has criticized obesity lawsuits, calling them rent-seeking vehicles neither law nor public policy.

in april 2008, several members of congress brought lilly ledbetter fair pay act under title vii, revision of law state prior acts outside 180-day statute of limitations included , affecting employment financial issues. frank against revision, saying wages , hiring reduced counter possibility of litigation hired employee. law passed in january 2009.

in february 2011, frank part of three-member panel @ vanderbilt university in tennessee consisted of himself, james blumstein, law professor @ university, , charlie ross, former state senator in mississippi, presenting perspectives on how business , people of state benefit tort reform. frank , other panelists argued tennessee’s current civil justice system both inconsistent , unsustainable , argued that, based on reforms in other states, reform in area result in 30,000 jobs year or 577 jobs each week in tennessee , improve health system.

issues , conflicts

in 2006, frank published op-ed in washington post arguing various tort reforms , criticizing association of trial lawyers of america show[ing] more of interest in benefiting trial lawyers in fairness or justice. jon haber, ceo of atla, responded in post, accusing frank of proposing destroy nation s civil justice system benefit insurance industry, drug companies , other corporate powers , of laughable claim many lawsuits may transform nation banana republic , of find[ing] fight justice trivial , making nothing more attack on constitution of united states . next day, frank described haber s op-ed collection of ad hominems , insults , non sequiturs , purport[ing] responding [frank, but] in fact responding fictional straw-man . accused haber of dishonest change of subject: @ no point haber defend lawsuits criticize , , ended noting haber did not respond important part of op-ed trial lawyers ... trying undo [the concept deal deal] retroactively .

in wall street journal opinion piece in 2007, frank said department of treasury , sec should urge supreme court reject expanded securities litigation liability in stoneridge v. scientific-atlanta. congressmen john conyers, jr. , barney frank criticized op-ed in saying frank s argument substituted policy considerations plain text of statute. frank rebutted allegation on overlawyered weblog. in 2007, frank posted article regarding tort trial lawyer arthur alan wolk on overlawyered, website has regularly posted on since 2003 tort reform issues, prompted wolk sue frank defamation. case dismissed barred 1 year statute of limitations. on appeal, reporters committee freedom of press, society of professional journalists, american society of news editors, new york times, washington post, associated press, , law professors , first amendment experts eugene volokh , glenn reynolds, among others, filed amicus briefs in support of defendants saying there no actionable claim of libel.

frank, worked on vioxx case in career, called perhaps loudest critic of vioxx litigation, , debated trial lawyer mark lanier issue. frank continued criticism in 2011 article. final sordid chapter in tort litigation on vioxx closed, judge eldon fallon divvied $315 million paid plaintiffs attorneys worked on litigation. sum in addition more $1.2 billion paid such attorneys. when add in merck paid plaintiffs , own attorneys, vioxx litigation cost more $7 billion. yet merck did not wrong. unsympathetic corporate defendant, won vast majority of cases went trial, , dozen or more plaintiffs attorneys dismissed on eve of trial rather risk publicity of loss. in handful of cases merck lost @ trial, such $253 million verdict in ernst case generated of publicity led tens of thousands of cases being filed, merck won reversals of of on appeal because verdicts based on conclusory junk-science expert testimony should not have been admitted evidence. lanier defended settlement fair.