California trial lawyers are intensifying efforts to prepare for future challenges to their profession, focusing on both political fundraising and internal reforms. Leading plaintiffs’ attorneys emphasize the need to bolster financial resources to counter potential tort reform initiatives and to pursue legislative measures addressing unethical behavior within their own ranks.
The Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) and allied groups have supported recent legislative proposals aimed at increasing oversight of plaintiffs’ lawyers. Discussions are underway regarding legislation that would make it easier for clients to sue attorneys accused of misconduct and strengthen protections for whistleblowers within the profession. Brian J. Panish, senior partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP in Los Angeles, highlighted the necessity of empowering lawyers to bring improper conduct before the courts if the State Bar fails to take action.
Nick Rowley, a plaintiffs’ attorney involved in crafting a preliminary legislative framework, explained that proposals include extending statutes of limitations or reopening time windows for clients to pursue claims against lawyers engaged in unethical practices. This is particularly relevant in cases where attorneys may have directed clients toward unnecessary medical procedures or entered prohibited referral arrangements.
Alongside legislative efforts, the plaintiffs’ bar is focused on maintaining a substantial financial war chest to deter future ballot initiatives aimed at curbing plaintiffs’ rights. The Alliance Against Corporate Abuse, a CAOC-backed political action committee formed during this year’s campaign against initiatives involving Uber Technologies Inc., raised approximately $80 million. Following a late legislative compromise that prevented the November ballot showdown, the committee spent at least $48 million and currently holds less than $30 million in reserves.
Roger A. Dreyer, partner at Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP in Sacramento and chair of CAOC’s PAC board, said maintaining a sizable fund is vital given the influx of technology sector money into ballot campaigns. “Corporations are not looking to create rights for consumers to sue them, they’re looking to shut them down,” Dreyer said. He noted that technology companies increasingly oppose plaintiffs’ attorneys who hold them accountable to their clients.
The fundraising campaign has also highlighted divisions within the plaintiffs’ bar. Records detailing contributions revealed disparities in support, leading to public criticism among some attorneys. At a recent Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles convention in Las Vegas, Rowley withdrew from a scheduled panel in protest, citing objections to the participation of attorneys who either did not contribute to the CAOC campaign or faced ethical complaints. Rowley publicly criticized attorneys such as Bakersfield’s Daniel Rodriguez and Long Beach’s Joseph Low for minimal financial support, contrasting with high contributions from his own firm and others.
Despite some criticism, CAOC President Doug Saeltzer acknowledged the sentiments within the trial lawyer community regarding peer contributions. Saeltzer emphasized the long-term goal of avoiding a complete rebuilding of the plaintiffs’ bar’s political infrastructure before the next corporate-backed ballot fight. “It would be irresponsible to start from zero the next attack that comes at victims from these large corporations,” Saeltzer said. “We just can’t do that.”