The Charleston Daily Mail has a story today about proposed legislation which would reduce the pension payments that state judges must currently make to the Judges’ Retirement System.

Under the rule change, many circuit judges and Supreme Court justices would see a bump in pay of more than $4,000 per year.  

As Ry Rivard reports of the legislation:

If the bill passes, it would amount to a pay raise for 49 state judges, even though the state is not spending any more on salaries.

 

Last year, Supreme Court justices received a $15,000 raise and circuit court judges received $10,000.

 

If the plan passes, circuit court judges in the plan would go from contributing $13,230 a year of their $126,000 salaries to the pension fund to contributing $8,820.

 

The result would be an increase in take-home pay of about $4,400 a year.

 

The two Supreme Court justices in the plan contribute $14,280 of their $136,000 annual salaries into the retirement system and would see a bump of about $4,800 a year in their take-home pay.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Corey Palumbo indicates that lawmakers will be looking at this issue closely to ensure that judges aren’t getting a salary break at taxpayer expense.

As the 2012 legislative session progresses, we’re getting a clearer picture of what’s likely to take place.  And while this year’s session started with a decidedly “pro-jobs” theme — aimed at taking advantage of the state’s Marcellus Shale prospects — the legislature’s “pro-jobs” momentum seems to have tailed off as of late.

Many of the legal reform measures introduced have seen little movement to date. In fact, most of the legislation that would help fix problems in our state’s legal system has gone nowhere.

As if that weren’t bad enough, there are several bills out there that, if passed, would have disastrous consequences for our state’s legal climate and future job prospects.

One pending disaster is a bill (H.B. 4325) that would take the extreme approach of granting prosecutorial powers to Attorney General Darrell McGraw. It’s ridiculous to even consider granting McGraw’s office such enormous responsibility given his past ethical missteps.  There’s little doubt that potential job providers would avoid West Virginia like the plague if such a bill were to become law.

Another ill-advised bill (H.B. 4268/S.B. 388) would essentially gut long-standing time limitations for lawsuit filings in West Virginia.  While the stated purpose of the legislation is to “reduce the number of defendants named in the beginning of a lawsuit,” this measure would actually wreak havoc on West Virginia’s rules of civil procedure – creating a great deal of uncertainty for potential litigants while also exposing our state courts to more out-of-state lawsuit filings. 

Finally, some lawmakers have sponsored legislation (H.B. 3015) which would create even more lawsuits in West Virginia, with the possibility of mandatory legal fees for the lawyers bringing those suits.  It should be crystal clear to everyone, lawmakers included, that we need more jobs in West Virginia, not more lawsuits.

If legislators aren’t going to reform West Virginia’s much-criticized legal system, the least they can do this year is not make it any worse.

Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s office has been criticized over the years for using the power of his office for political gain.

Attorney General Darrell McGraw

During the 2004 election year, the Attorney General’s office spent nearly $1 million of state funds on television advertisements that appeared to be geared towards building public recognition of the McGraw name.  The Charleston Daily Mail criticized the media blitz, writing that “using the power of a government office to help…win an election is an insult to the taxpayers’ intelligence.

McGraw’s office has also been criticized for spending tens of thousands of dollars on trinkets (such as key chains, bumper stickers and even gun locks) which bear McGraw’s names. Former employees of the Attorney General’s office have testified under oath that the purchase of such items were part of a coordinated effort to help Darrell McGraw’s re-election efforts.

And the Attorney General’s recent handling of two lawsuit settlements – in particular his decision not to turn over settlement funds to the state agencies he was supposed to represent – will likely result in the loss of millions of dollars in Medicaid funds for West Virginia seniors.  All so that McGraw could hand out millions of dollars in state funds to his favorite pet projects.

With McGraw up for re-election this year, allegations of misusing taxpayer funds are again resurfacing.

The West Virginia Record  reports on the latest criticisms of Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s office:

On Jan. 31, Hughes was quoted in an article in the Charleston Daily Mail talking about Republican challenger Patrick Morrisey and his campaign against current AG Darrell McGraw.

 

State Republican Party Chairman Mike Stuart said Hughes “sounded more like a campaign spokesman than a high-ranking official of state government.”

 

“Did Fran Hughes provide that interview during working hours?” Stuart asked in his press release last week. “Was she sitting in a state office or using a state phone? Is Darrell McGraw planning on using taxpayer resources to run his re-election campaign?

“Fran Hughes is paid to work for the people of West Virginia, not to be a campaign spokesman for McGraw. We need to know if the Attorney General plans to run his campaign from his taxpayer funded office on his taxpayer funded salary and his taxpayer funded staff.”

 

The executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse also commented last week on Hughes’ interview with the Daily Mail.

 

“It’s no secret that Darrell McGraw has misused taxpayer funds over the years for his own political gain,” Richie Heath said. “Whether it’s rewarding his campaign contributing personal injury lawyer friends with lucrative no-bid legal contracts or wasting state settlement funds on trinkets and advertisements promoting his name in election years, the Attorney General continues to set a low bar for the ethics of public officials.”

Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s continued misuse of state funds is disappointing.  It has reached the point at which most people, including Chief Deputy Attorney General Fran Hughes, have a hard time distinguishing between the actions of the Attorney General’s office and the McGraw political machine.

It looks like 2012 will be no exception, with the Attorney General’s office devoting state funds and resources in an effort to secure McGraw’s re-election. West Virginian taxpayers deserve better of their Attorney General.

A supporter shares her story on getting “sucked into lawsuit hell” in West Virginia’s courts:

Out of nowhere, I was getting sued for a fender bender two years prior. Originally, they were suing me as the driver (which I wasn’t).

 

Instead of dismissing the case, the judge told them to re-filed and sue the correct driver. So they are now suing “Jane Doe” and my husband, who is deceased.

 

God bless a judicial system where you can sue Jane Doe & a dead man.

A far too common theme we hear from this supporter, and many others, is that she wants to “fight back but no one is interested.” Her attorney “made it pretty clear she just wants to settle the claim.” Four other attorneys noted to her that the case wasn’t “a big deal – just standard procedure!”

An unfortunate by-product of West Virginia’s “Judicial Hellhole” reputation is the mentality that it is often cheaper to settle, than risk going to trial. As a result, this supporter and many other West Virginians often never get the chance they deserve to fight back in court.

While a lot has been made about the amount of third party spending in West Virginia judicial elections, not much coverage has been devoted to the amount of money actually spent by judicial candidates in recent elections for West Virginia’s high court.

The 2012 Court elections look to be no exception, begging the question of whether personal wealth is a necessary requirement for service on the state Supreme Court.

Just this past week, Supreme Court candidate Tish Chafin announced that she was loaning her campaign a whopping $1 million dollars.  As The Charleston Daily Mail reports:

Chafin, of Charleston, is married to Sen. Truman Chafin, D-Mingo, and plans to draw on their wealth during the campaign to distinguish herself in a crowded Democratic primary field.

 

Six Democrats are vying for two spots on the court.

Over the years, the Chafins have worked together in an extremely successful personal injury law firm. And it appears that Tish Chafin is now hoping those legal fees will translate into a position on the Supreme Court.

Wealthy personal injury lawyers certainly have a good track record over the years.

In 1996, Supreme Court Justice Robin Jean Davis was first elected to the Court – loaning her campaign nearly $250,000 in the process.  Four years later, Justice Davis won re-election to the Court thanks, in part, to more than $350,000 in personal loans.

Justices Menis Ketchum and Margaret Workman also relied heavily on their personal wealth in winning election to the Court in 2008.  Chief Justice Ketchum loaned his campaign a total of $640,000, while Justice Workman contributed slightly more than $600,000 of her own money.

But Chafin’s announcement immediately dwarfs the campaign spending of those Justices, and raises some serious questions about the state of judicial elections in West Virginia.

Is personal wealth now a pre-requisite for selection to the West Virginia Supreme Court? Do judicial elections in West Virginia favor wealthy trial lawyers over experienced judges?

Is justice for sale in West Virginia, with Supreme Court seats going to the highest bidder?

In 2010, state lawmakers passed a bill creating a public financing pilot program for this year’s Supreme Court elections.  While the measure was praised as an attempt to curb the influence of outside money on judicial elections, it looks like only one of the eight announced candidates for Court will qualify for the pilot program.  

As WV MetroNews reports:

A Republican candidate for the state Supreme Court will have public funding to use for his election bid this year.

 

Allen Loughry says that funding, a first for a candidate in West Virginia under a new judicial public funding program, puts him in a good spot.

Supreme Court Candidate Allen Loughry

 

“Nobody owns me in any fashion,” he said on Monday’s MetroNews Talkline. “The people of West Virginia have spoken. More than 700 people around this state have stepped up, made a contribution, made this happen.”

 

In recent months, those working on Loughry’s behalf have collected hundreds of campaign contributions from registered voters throughout West Virginia for small amounts, ranging from $1 to $100. Those contributions add up to $35,000.

 

…As part of the pilot program, public funding will now be added to those dollars to give him a minimum total of $50,000 to spend for his Primary Election campaign along with a minimum of $350,000 for the General Election.

Loughry makes a good point about the appearance of bias that is created when court candidates accept contributions from the lawyers that appear before them. But with only one candidate taking advantage of the public financing pilot program, it’s unclear whether state lawmakers will support the program going forward.

A better solution would be to focus on reforms that would emphasize the judicial qualifications of candidates over political connections. Legislation establishing the non-partisan election of judges, which is currently pending in the Legislature, would be a first good step.

With the candidate filing period for the 2012 elections completed, it looks like Attorney General Darrell McGraw will face a tough re-election challenge.  Eastern Panhandle attorney Patrick Morrisey has stepped up to challenge McGraw, who is seeking a 6th term as Attorney General. 

Patrick Morrisey

Morrisey notes that McGraw’s twenty years in office ”is just too long. We need a strong, new voice — someone with the experience, knowledge and leadership to change the Office of Attorney General and help restrain Washington’s appetite for spending, regulations, and mandates.”

The West Virginia Record writes of Morrisey’s campaign that:

[Morrisey is] committed to changing the ethics environment in the state and challenging excessive federal and state regulations that make West Virginia one of the most unfriendly climates for starting and maintaining a business.

 

“One of the reasons that West Virginia ranks at the bottom of most major economic indicators in the country is because its legal system is hostile to business,” he said. “As Attorney General, I will fight to turn the state’s legal climate around and champion strong ethics reform.”

The Charleston Daily Mail quotes Morrisey on the need for change in West Virginia:

“As I started to look at the office of the attorney general, I just thought it was so critical we take a fresh look at how the office operates. What we’ve been doing for the last 20 years just wasn’t working.”

In all likelihood, the 2012 election for Attorney General will focus on accountability in the Attorney General’s office.  McGraw will have to explain his questionable conduct in two recent lawsuit settlements – which was recently rejected by the federal courts. As a result of McGraw’s actions, West Virginia could lose millions in federal Medicaid funding for some of the state’s neediest residents – the elderly and disabled citizens.

Ultimately, West Virginia voters will decide if they are happy with the direction of our state’s Attorney General.

With the 2012 legislative session underway, state lawmakers have introduced several legal reform measures that would help move our state forward.  Here’s a quick look at some of the key bills:

• Senate Bill 420 – Creating the Civil Justice Reform Act of 2012:  Sponsored by Senators Hall, Nohe, K. Facemyer, Nohe, Barnes, Boley & Jenkins, S.B. 420 would implement several civil justice reform measures that have been recommended for the state. Those measures include the creation of an intermediate appeals court with a corresponding automatic right of appeal, additional venue reforms which would help deter improper out-of-state lawsuit filings in West Virginia, increased standards for expert witness testimony, and a requirement of proof of injury for any claims for medical monitoring.  You can read the full text of the bill by clicking here.
• H.B. 3161- Relating to the Attorney General’s use of outside counsel: H.B. 3161 – which is sponsored by Delegate Patrick Lane – would provide for additional oversight of the Attorney General’s use of private attorneys to pursue litigation on behalf of the state. The legislation would require the Attorney General to seek bids from private attorneys when seeking outside counsel to represent the state, seek legislative approval from the Joint Committee on Government and Finance of any proposed settlement agreements involving the Attorney General’s office, and deposit any legal proceeds from civil actions filed by the Attorney General’s office directly into the state’s General Revenue Fund. You can read the full text of the bill by clicking here.
• Non-partisan election of judges in West Virginia – S.B. 91 & H.B. 2488: Legislation has been sponsored in both the state Senate and the House of Delegates to select West Virginia’s judges through the use of non-partisan elections. At present, West Virginia is one of only a handful of states that selects its judges through partisan elections.  The legislation, as introduced, would place greater emphasis on the actual qualifications of West Virginia judicial candidates, rather than party affiliation or political experience. You can read the full text of each bill by clicking here or here.

These are just a few of the legal reform measures that are working through the West Virginia Legislature.  We will continue to update our readers on the progress of these and many other legal reform measures as they occur.

The folks at Gallivan, White & Boyd have a great post in their “Abnormal Use” blog about how legal confrontations can often be avoided with a simple phone call, and sometimes a few beers. It’s well worth the read, as it includes perhaps one of the funniest legal responses ever.

As the “Abnormal Use” blog explains:

There is nothing like the realization that your legal fees purchased a life-like rendition of a bipedal carnivore from the Cretaceous Period. We imagine Steelhead didn’t find this letter quite as humorous as we did, but we hear the Flying Spaghetti Monster had a few laughs with his carbon copy. At least Steelhead can take solace in knowing they will be the recipient of a high-five at the next Great American Beer Festival.

We encourage our readers to check out the full story by clicking here!

The start of the new year brings with it another legislative session, and many are wondering whether this will be the year that state lawmakers finally address much-needed legal reform measures.

West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse has a commentary in this week’s West Virginia Record and Charleston Daily Mail on some of the reform measures that should be addressed:

A recent survey by West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse shows that jobs and the economy are the most important issues for West Virginia voters, with 94 percent saying that is “very” important to them as a voter.

 

Since 2012 is also an election year, it’s a safe bet that our legislators will be looking to build voter support with a pro-jobs agenda.

 

To attract good-paying jobs, we must address some of the core problems in our legal system.

 

An insufficient appeals process, abuse of power in the Attorney General’s office, and excessive verdicts are currently just a few of the issues that give job providers pause when looking to invest in West Virginia.

 

A majority of West Virginians believe that the state’s legal climate has a negative impact on job creation. By supporting these and other needed legal reform measures, state lawmakers can ensure that West Virginia starts the year on the right foot and moving in the right direction.

You can read the entirety of WV CALA’s op-ed piece by clicking here or here. Readers can also keep checking our blog for the latest updates regarding the progress of all proposed legal reform legislation.