UNEQUAL JUSTICE

"To the extent that litigation is a business, it's good for St. Louis." -- An unidentified circuit judge, quoted in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article focusing on the explosion of multimillion-dollar verdicts in the St. Louis City courts, many in cases arising out of accidents occurring up to 300 miles away and having nothing to do with St. Louis.

Like the abysmal physical condition of the Civil Courts building in which the verdicts are rendered, or the appalling conditions in much of the rapidly shrinking city of St. Louis, the judge's quote excerpted above is a perfect metaphor for decline and decay. For decades, the whimsical line about our once-great urban neighbor to the north was, "First in shoes, first in booze and last in the American League." Today, the motto of this hollowed-out urban core might as well be, "Welcome to the city of St. Louis, capital of injustice, America's sinkhole of one-sided, pro-plaintiff lawsuits."

Four stories by Terry Ganey of the Post-Dispatch (reprinted in the Southeast Missourian last week) constitute a remarkable piece of work in the finest tradition of American newspapering. Distilled to their essence, the lengthy stories impart this simple truth: The plaintiff -- the person bringing a lawsuit -- can pick his venue, or place to file suit, while the defendant not only can't do so, but can't even get a change of venue under ordinary circumstances. Is this equal justice under law?

Most Missourians who aren't members of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys will, without any question, answer in the negative.

We know how to reform this deplorable situation. A simple change in Supreme Court Rule 51.03, which can be effected by a vote of four of the seven judges on the Missouri Supreme Court, will even the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants in Missouri civil cases.

An old saw says, "Every dog has his day." In St. Louis, the personal-injury lawyers have had theirs, in spades. Many personal-injury lawyers have pulled down multimillion-dollar verdicts there that are questionable at best. At the very least, they are staggeringly out of line with those of any other jurisdiction in the state. Their "day" has come at the expense of an out-of-control legal system that lopsidedly, overwhelmingly favors plaintiffs. Those who see nothing wrong with our society's litigation explosion will see nothing wrong with this. The rest of us, among society's producers, will see that this isn't equal justice under law, and that it cries out for reform.

It is time for forthright action by the Missouri Supreme Court to restore some reasonable balance. If the judges refuse, then Missourians should begin to take the seldom-used opportunity offered us under the Missouri Constitution: Start tossing a few of them out at the next judicial retention election. Then voters should continue doing so at subsequent elections, until whoever remains on the state's high court begins to get the message.

A tough remedy? Sure. You might even call it rough justice. But, until the indefensible situation prevailing inside the halls of justice in St. Louis is rectified as it easily can be by a mere change in the Supreme Court rule, voting no on retention of judges is a step that will have to be considered. A majority of seven members on the high court has the power to effect reform. They should get busy and just do it.