Grisham should stick to novels

John Grisham, the trial lawyer turned best-selling novelist who lives near Charlottesville, has linked arms with billionaire George Soros in calling for an end to judicial elections, popular and politicized in almost two-thirds of the 50 states. Such is not the case here, where state lawmakers elect judges, a better but not ideal alternative in Grisham's view.

He favors the appointment of judges by an appellate judicial commission. As Wall Street Journal senior editorial writer Collin Levy explains in a recent column, such panels frequently are made up of trial lawyers, Grisham's brethren. The method is called "merit selection," and it's used in more than 20 states.
This process, Grisham assures us, prevents the sort of real-life scenario he describes in his latest work of fiction, "The Appeal," in which a chemical company executive seeks to bribe a judge into a favorable verdict. Elected judges, the reasoning goes, are more prone to fall under the sway of special interests, an intriguing line of thinking given the significant interest of trial lawyers, such as Grisham in his former life, in crafting a roster of judges to their liking.

The nonfiction material in this argument is that neither electing nor selecting judges can subvert the incentive of people on both sides to manipulate the system to their advantage. As Levy writes, judicial elections at least provide for greater transparency since special interests' campaign donations are a matter of public record.

Were Grisham sincerely concerned about ensuring fairness and equity, he might consider the impact of exorbitant civil awards. The U.S. civil justice system has swelled into an industry valued at more than $245 billion annually, the most expensive in the world, according to the American Tort Reform Association. That amount is almost equaled by total liability insurance premiums paid by U.S. companies each year.

No small portion of this money covers comically frivolous lawsuits. Try this one: Two carpet installers read and admitted understanding a label advising that an adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside. They did so nonetheless, leading to an explosion in which they were badly burned. They won $8 million for their brilliance.

Not so funny, but more symptomatic of what's wrong with our system is the career of two-time presidential aspirant John Edwards. He won settlements totaling more than $60 million, keeping about a third of the money, in 20 lawsuits blaming doctors for failing to immediately perform a Caesarean section to deliver babies in distress. In syrupy, homespun appeals to juries, Edwards claimed that without C-sections, the babies struggled for air and suffered brain damage or cerebral palsy.
His success produced a wave of similar suits, won on precedent, and provided money enough to put him in a warehouse-sized 40,000-square-foot home. It also resulted in a sharp increase in Caesarean sections, carrying surgery's inherent risk and expense. The catch is that studies repeatedly have debunked the notion that C-sections reduce risk of cerebral palsy.
If Grisham wants justice, he should support placing reasonable caps on civil awards, removing the seven- and eight-figure temptations that drive men such as Edwards to press for fat settlements even when they know the science is questionable. Otherwise, we hope Grisham sticks to penning fiction in his cottage in the shadows of the Blue Ridge. At least America can afford the price of those tall tales.