Judges chosen via partisan elections tend to be more likely to favor plaintiffs and liability lawyers than those who are appointed or selected via non-partisan processes, according to research noted by Forbes.com.

The research pointed especially to relationships between elected judges and liability lawyers in Alabama, Texas and West Virginia.

“In research published in the Journal of Law and Economics ... [the researchers] found that awards against out-of-state defendants were 42 percent higher in states that use partisan elections to select their judges than in states that appoint judges,” to the tune of $363,000 per case, Forbes.com reported.

How can that be? Both Forbes and a 2006 Judicial Hellholes report from the American Tort Reform Association offer the same possibility, by way of a quote from a former West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals justice.

This story continues below
Advertisement

“As long as I am allowed to redistribute wealth from out-of-state companies to in-state plaintiffs, I shall continue to do so,” Judge Richard Neely reportedly said.

Sometimes, liability lawyers become quite candid about how they believe they have gained an advantage with particular judges. The Houston Chronicle reported earlier this month on a 2001 letter from Texas plaintiff lawyer Mikal Watts to his opposing counsel with American Electric Power, an out-of-state firm named as a defendant in a suit stemming from an auto accident.

Watts was encouraging the opposing side to settle for $60 million by describing what he believed to be for it the unfamiliar lay of the legal land in South Texas courts. “Politely put, south Texas venue by itself makes this a very dangerous lawsuit,” he said in his letter.

Then he pointed out that if American Electric Power did take the case to court and lose, its appeal would go to the 13th Court of Appeals in the Texas judiciary. “This court is comprised of six justices, all of whom are good Democrats. The Chief Justice, Hon. Rogelio Valdez, was recently elected with our firm’s heavy support, and is a man who believes in the sanctity of jury verdicts.”

Watts wasn’t kidding, either, because his firm had contributed more than $80,000 to several of the appeals judges’ campaigns in previous years. And he went on to note that his firm was involved in the re-election effort of one of the judges even as he composed his letter.

Such threats don’t always work, however, as Watts told the Chronicle that the appeals court subsequently overturned a $122 million judgment against AEP.

"Lawyers Gone Wild" is a series of special reports by The Examiner looking at the cost and consequences of class action lawsuit abuse in the United States. Read the latest articles in the series.