[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E565-E566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. LOUIS STOKES

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, March 6, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 988) to 
     reform the Federal civil justice system.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 988, 
the Attorney Accountability Act of 1995. While I am aware of the 
current excitement in the Congress to do anything perceived as 
promoting the interests of the rich, and big corporations, I am also 
mindful of my duty as a Member of Congress to act in the best interest 
of the all the people I represent and in the best interest of the U.S. 
Constitution I have sworn to uphold.
  We cannot and should not, in an attempt to decrease the amount of 
frivolous lawsuits, shirk our responsibility to act in the best 
interest of poor and hard working Americans by disrespecting the 
Founding principles of the American justice system--over 200 years of 
common law. This shortsighted and rushed legislation will not only fail 
to reform or enhance the legal system in the United States, but will 
endanger the delicate balance of power between rich and poor, powerful 
and weak, so skillfully and wisely crafted over 200 years of 
development in the courts of this Nation.
  The bill before us today, the Attorney Accountability Act of 1995, 
will not only attempt to curtail unwanted lawsuits, but will also make 
it impossible for regular Americans to have access to the Federal 
courts. Such an assault on American citizens' rights to access to the 
courts is an outrage. This restrictive bill will certainly undermine 
many of our most important efforts to provide a forum that promotes 
equality for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, the stated purpose of the Attorney Accountability Act 
is to require one party to pay the other's attorney fees and other 
legal costs if that party rejects a settlement offer, and then receives 
less in the
 judgment at trial. Republican proponents have stated that this 
provision is intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and encourage 
parties to settle disputes prior to trial. This bill also establishes 
new restrictions on the use of scientific evidence, by establishing a 
presumption of inadmissability. Finally, the bill requires judges to 
impose sanctions on attorneys for making frivolous arguments.

  This legislation, which would result in limiting citizens' access to 
our Federal courts, warps the American justice system to such an extent 
that the motives of the drafters of this legislation should be 
seriously questioned. While I agree that Congress should continue to 
make significant strides to improve the quality of litigation in this 
country, this proposed measure goes well beyond the legitimate 
objective of balancing the interests of regular working people and 
corporate America. In fact, this bill will inhibit the will of the 
people by transferring all of the power of rendering justice in the 
courts to the wealthy, well-connected, and privileged.
  The clear result of the imposition of a lower pays rule would be to 
destroy Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to have access to 
the Federal courts through diversity jurisdiction. Article III of the 
U.S. Constitution guarantees diversity jurisdiction and unequivocally 
states: ``The judicial power shall extend to all cases * * * between 
citizens of different States * * *.'' The 14th and 15th amendments 
declare that no State ``shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or 
property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its 
jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.'' The 14th and 15th 
amendments were clearly intended to ensure all Americans access to the 
courts of this country for the protection of their persons and 
property, to redress wrongs and to enforce contracts. Without free 
access to the courts, Americans' constitutional rights will be 
abrogated. By imposing on working Americans what could be substantial 
costs for bringing an unsuccessful claim, H.R. 988 locks the Federal 
courthouse doors, and gives the rich the key.
  Mr. Chairman, not only would transferring the power in litigation to 
the wealthier party be clearly contrary to the course of 200 years of 
American common law, the reasoning behind this unfair and unjust bill 
is not supported by the facts. So-called frivolous lawsuits actually 
make up a minute portion of all lawsuits litigated in this Nation. 
Under current law, the Federal rules of civil procedure give judges the 
opportunity to hold attorneys accountable for bringing frivolous
 lawsuits. Rule 11 of the Federal rules of civil procedure presently 
authorize Federal courts to impose sanctions upon attorneys, law firms, 
or parties for engaging in inappropriate conduct or for bringing 
frivolous or harassment lawsuits. The facts clearly show that despite 
the fact that there were thousands of cases filed last year, in less 
than 1 percent of those cases did Federal judges determine that rule 11 
sanctions were justified.

  H.R. 988 would remove from the wise discretion of a Federal judge the 
determination of how to impose rule 11 sanctions. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have often claimed that they favor retracting 
the tentacles of the Federal Government from local people, who best 
know and understand the issues they face. Yet, this bill flies in the 
face of this often touted Republican ethic. H.R. 988 removes from a 
Federal judge who has heard the evidence, knows the parties, and lives 
in the community, the discretion to make a determination of when to 
impose rule 11 sanctions. This modification of the Federal rules is 
unjustified, ill-advised and will lead to injustice for working and 
middle-class Americans.
  For over 200 years, the American legal system has developed a system 
that keeps frivolous suits to a minimum. The free market has 
established contingent fee arrangements that create an enormous 
disincentive for plaintiffs who seek to initiate frivolous lawsuits. 
Contingent fee cases permit working- and middle-class Americans to have 
access to attorneys whose fees they could not normally afford. This 
does not mean that these plaintiffs currently incur no costs or risks. 
Plaintiffs are often faced with substantial court costs and attorney 
expenses that must be paid up front and are often nonrefundable, win, 
or lose.
  The reality of the economics of contingent fee arrangements make it 
economically ill-advisable to bring, support or litigate frivolous 
claims. H.R. 988's so-called attack on frivolous 
[[Page E566]] lawsuit is, in fact, an attack on the access of regular 
Americans to the courts, and subverts the economic realities of 
contingent fee litigation that already discourages frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is unsurpassed in its compromise of 
the balance of powers between litigants in our Nation. With very little 
opportunity for open hearing, and with limited debate, this measure has 
been placed before us. A measure of this kind requires detailed 
analysis of the impact it may have on the American people, and one of 
the greatest pillars of the American Republic: The people's access to 
the courts--but no such review has, or will, take place. In the current 
rush to force this bill through the House, the interests of the 
American people and the American justice system will certainly be 
compromised on the altar of corporate greed. I urge my colleagues to 
join with me, and vote against this bill.


                          ____________________