Panelists, including a California senator, met Wednesday at the
UCLA School of Law to debate the pros and cons of Proposition 64,
giving law students and other voters insight into one of 16
initiatives on the November ballot.
If Proposition 64 passes, it will require individuals to show
they have been harmed by unfair business practices before they sue
a business. The initiative also requires representative claims
regarding unfair business practices to meet requirements for class
action lawsuits unless a public prosecutor files those claims.
About 40 people attended the public forum sponsored by UCLA
Trial Lawyers, Capitalist Law Students, the Business Law Students
Association and the Graduate Student Association. It lasted two
hours, well over its intended time frame.
State Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove, spoke against Proposition
64, with Brad Seilig, a partner of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
and LLP, arguing the other side. Two additional panelists commented
on the proposition, but concentrated mainly on the wider issue of
tort reform.
Calling Proposition 64 a “sensible, limited reform to a
law that starts in a good place,” Seilig argued that the
current state statute allows “frivolous” suits into the
court system. The initiative would close a loophole that allows
disputes to enter the courtroom on topics ranging from the distance
a water gun can shoot to the amount of time it takes to cook a meal
using an Easy-Bake Oven.
Lawyers claiming to protect the public threaten inexperienced
business owners with the law, when in reality their interest is in
raking in cash from out-of-court settlements, Seilig said.
“I’ve heard every lawyer joke in the book, and when
you have lawsuits kicking around in the system for a squirt gun
that doesn’t shoot,” it tarnishes the reputation of
California’s legal system, he said.
“If there weren’t shake-down lawsuits, I’d
probably have 20 percent less work,” he added later.
Dunn countered Seilig’s arguments, saying while he agreed
reform is needed, Proposition 64 is “overkill.”
“Those abuses were all about bad lawyers, and not about
bad law. … No legitimate lawyer who sees himself or herself as a
professional would file such a case,” he said.
Dunn said he met with car manufacturers between the summers of
2002 and 2003 to discuss the problem of unwarranted lawsuits. Dunn
said all parties involved in those talks agreed that a clause
requiring lawyers to secure court approval for settlements and
attorney fees would be enough to prevent abuse of the law.
But after politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the tobacco
industry became involved, the process moving toward that
legislation collapsed, Dunn said.
By approving Proposition 64, voters would close the door to
groups and individuals who have used the law to sue businesses in
cases regarding the environment, he added. The law needs to be
broad to provide a way to stop practices that pose a danger to
health ““ before anyone is harmed, Dunn said.
Chatting with guests for about half an hour after the event
ended, Dunn said he wanted to speak at UCLA because
“it’s important for law students to have direct access
to practitioners in the field … to have this sort of intellectual
exchange.”
Shana Elson, a third-year law student, said she attended the
debate to learn opposing arguments because a class she’s
taking on the subject “tends to be
consumer-oriented.”
While perspectives exist that support the idea that the law in
question is “overused and abused, (we) don’t get any of
that in class,” she said.