MISSOURI NEES A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR LITIGANTS IN CIVIL LAWSUITS

There are two places in this state where civil defendants in personal injury, products liability and other cases of this type simply do not receive a fair trial. The greatest miscarriage of justice occurs to those defendants who are sued in St. Louis. Jackson County is not far behind.

There is no question that a civil plaintiff in St. Louis or Jackson County enjoys a tremendous advantage relative to all other counties in Missouri. Plaintiff's lawyers who use this advantage to make tens of millions and probably even hundreds of millions of dollars each year will state that it is malpractice for an attorney to file a case in any other county when that attorney can file in St. Louis or Jackson County.

The fact that juries in St. Louis and Jackson County like to give away the money of civil defendants is obviously a major problem for the civil defendant, but it's quite a blessing if you're a plaintiff's lawyer working on a one-third contingent fee.

The problem with the present system is that the plaintiff's lawyers are able to file suit in those counties where juries like to give away other peoples' money, and the defendants are forced to go to trial in those counties. What is fair about a system that allows one side the exclusive right to choose the venue where a case is going to be tried?

How bad is it to be sued in St. Louis, as compared with other counties around the state? I have had attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants tell me that in St. Louis a plaintiff can often expect to receive 10 times as much as in many outside counties.

A plaintiff's attorney said recently he thought a railroad crossing accident that would result in a $100,000 verdict or settlement in our circuit would bring $1 million in St. Louis.

On the other side of the aisle, I had a defense attorney state recently that his clients are tired of paying $30,000 to settle a certain type of personal injury case in outstate Missouri and $300,000 in St. Louis. Because I never work in the western half of the state, I do not hear these types of comments about Jackson County, but I do know attorneys throughout the state believe that Jackson County is close to being as favorable to plaintiffs as St. Louis City.

When the railroad crossing accident worth $100,000 in outstate Missouri results in a jury verdict for $1 million in St. Louis City, the consumer has just been ripped off for $900,000. It is the consumer who pays the higher freight rates.

The public needs to understand that there are two interests in conflict here. One of the interests is that of the plaintiff's lawyers, who have an organization called the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. The members of MATA love big verdicts because they usually get one-third or more of the verdict. They want to bring their suits in St. Louis City or Jackson County. They tremble at the thought of going to trial in any of Missouri's other 112 counties.

A plaintiff's lawyer was quoted recently in a newspaper for lawyers as saying that plaintiffs just can't win anymore in Cass and Clay counties. St. Louis County was described recently by a MATA member as a "plaintiff's hell." There is nothing a MATA member detests more than a level playing field.

The other interest that should be considered is that of the public. If MATA members are allowed to continue to rip off civil defendants, then the public needs to be prepared to pick up the tab.

The solution to the problem is simple. In 105 Missouri counties (those with a population of less than 75,000), defendants are entitled under Missouri Supreme Court rule to an automatic change of venue merely by asking for the change.

In nine Missouri counties (those with a population of 75,000 or more), defendants are not entitled to a change of venue. If we make the change of venue rule apply to all Missouri counties, then both sides have a voice in where the case will be heard.

In spite of everything MATA members have said about how attorneys should file their cases in St. Louis and Jackson County, when confronted with the proposed rule change, they would argue that they really don't enjoy an unfair advantage. If that is the case and they really don't enjoy an unfair advantage in those two jurisdictions, then they really shouldn't object to the rule change.

If, on the other hand, they do enjoy such an advantage, then I believe it is incumbent on the Missouri Supreme Court to change the rule, take away MATA's advantage and make the playing field level.

If you agree with this, write Chief Justice John Holstein, Missouri Supreme Court, Box 150, Jefferson City, Mo. 65102.

Tell Judge Holstein you think the rule needs to be changed. If the court receives enough letters, the rule will be changed. If it doesn't, it won't. Fairness is one rule-change away.

Ralph Voss is an associate circuit judge in Osage County.