Most people view the &quot;need&quot; for tort reform in monetary terms. Law and economics. Risk/benefit analyses.<br/><br/>But what I find interesting about tort reform is that, in my opinion, it has very little to do with money.<br/><br/>There are, of course, some extremes. The insurance industry, for example, which profits both from scaring its customers into paying more premiums, and from convincing legislators or judges and jurors to limit its responsibility for providing relief. Or with extremely dangerous products, like tobacco, or asbestos, or pharmaceuticals, where litigation can have a dramatic effect, both positively and negatively.<br/><br/>But, in the grand scheme of things, there isn't that much money involved. Insurance costs, for example, represent only 0.6% of the annual gross receipts of large businesses, around only 1% for smaller companies. The direct costs of medical malpractice litigation, (including settlements/awards, insurance premiums, self-insurance costs, attorneys fees, and costs of litigation), account for only 1% of total health care expenditures. Products liability litigation accounts for only $0.26 of every $100 of retail sales.<br/><br/>It's just, in the grand scheme of things a cost, (and a relatively small cost) of doing business. And yet it strikes an emotional cord. Why? Arrogance and autonomy. That, in my opinion, is really what it comes down to. Lawyers, doctors, self-made men and woman, accountants, engineers, and corporate executives don't want to be second-guessed by ordinary people whom they don't consider their peers.<br/><br/>So take a deep breath. Take a step back. Try to put yourself at the plaintiff's table, instead of the defendant's. Or, better yet, place yourself in the jury box, or on the bench. And ask yourself this question: Who do you trust to make decisions?<br/><br/>Who do you trust to protect you and your family from dangerous products? From unfair business practices? To protect and preserve the environment? To decide what you need to know? To determine what's right, and what is fair?<br/><br/>The Government? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Business leaders? CEOs?<br/><br/>Bernie Ebbers? Ruppert Murdock? Martha Stewart? Hank Greenberg? Dick Cheney? Kenneth Lay? ExxonMobil? Philip Morris? Allstate?<br/><br/>&quot;You know, so much of the time we're just lost&quot; says Paul Newman to the jury playing the fictional character of Frank Galvin in <em>The Verdict</em>. &quot;We say, 'Please, God, tell us what is right. Tell us what is true.' And there is no justice. The rich win. The poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after time, we become dead. We think of ourselves as victims, and we become victims. We become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our institutions, and we doubt the law. But today&quot; he tells the jury, &quot;you are the law. Not some book. Not the lawyers. Not the marble statue, nor the trappings of the court. They are just symbols, of our desire to be just. They are, in fact, a prayer. A fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, 'Act as if ye had faith. Faith will be given to you.' If we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves.&quot;<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><small>[See The Verdict, &#169; Copyright 1982 by 20th Century Fox, written by David Mamet, based on the novel by Barry Reed, produced by Richard Zanuck &amp; David Brown, and directed by Sidney Lumet.]</small><br/><br/><small>[Note - The views expressed on this political blog / blawg relating to corporate welfare, the myth of the &quot;litigation explostion&quot;, trickle-down or supply-side economics, and other issues are the personal observations of Stephen J. Herman as a practicing attorney and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz &amp; Cotlar, Herman Mathis, LTLA, LAJ, ATLA, AAJ, Public Justice, TLPJ, Loyola Law School, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.]</small>