Once again, corporations try to limit Californians’ access to justice

If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, then Californians will veto the latest attempt by a cabal of deep-pocketed multinational corporations to limit California consumers' access to justice. See "Plaintiffs' lawyers attack business group over ballot measures," Daily Journal (Nov. 9, 2021).

These powerful entities have pushed for decades to limit or eliminate contingency fees -- a form of payment that affords the victims of wrongdoing, especially working families and low-income plaintiffs, access to high-quality legal services.

To get a better sense of just how unpopular this idea is, we can travel back in time to 1988 when the insurance industry put three initiatives on the ballot: Propositions 101, 104, 106. Each one would have slashed existing contingency fee caps significantly, and voters overwhelmingly opposed all three.

Then, in 1996, another effort materialized. Backed by the grossly misnamed "Civil Justice Association of California," the same shadowy group behind the current proposed initiatives to restrict access to civil justice, Proposition 202 would have capped contingency fees at 15% regardless of the settlement or damages. Voters roundly rejected that measure as well.

Once again, the fossil fuel and tobacco companies, Wall Street Banks, and pharmaceutical companies that fund and operate CJAC are banking on the passage of time to deliver a different result on their recurring cynical attack on consumers. And, once again, voters should send these big corporations packing. 

-- Robert Herrell

Executive Director

Consumer Federation of California