Joanne Doroshow of the Center for Justice & Democracy was on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour when the subject turned to Covington & Burling partner Philip Howard.
Covington & Burling Partner
Philip Howard
“Tell us about Philip Howard, a partner of the corporate law firm Covington & Burling that has rep resented the tobacco industry, the drug industry, the chemical industry, and other baleful tortfeasors,” said host Ralph Nader. “Tell us. What does Philip Howard do? Why does he get such play in the op ed pages of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and you don’t get any?”
American Tort Reform Association President Tiger Joyce
“Well, he’s made a career out of attacking any kind of corporate regulation, and the civil jury system,” Doroshow said. “And he does it not with facts but with a lot of inflammatory stereotypes about lawsuits and the need for law in America. And he does that against a backdrop of unprecedented corporate misconduct as if none of that is happening. So, he gets an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal because that’s how the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal views America. And he’s — talk about a lightweight. I’ve never seen anything that he’s ever said or written that sources anything factually. He just engages in a lot of rhetoric and tries to accomplish something that way. But we don’t engage in rhetoric. We try to engage in facts and source everything that we do. And I guess certain publications don’t appreciate that. So you see more from Phil Howard than from us.”
Nader said that “Phil Howard gets a real pass because when he’s identified for these op-ed features that he’s allowed to put into big newspapers, they never identify him as a senior partner of Covington & Burling.”
“They identify him with some nonprofit group that he started,” Nader “I had the pleasure, once, of debating Phil Howard in Washington DC. And I had even more pleasure after it was over. Because, as you say, he can’t argue the facts. And it’s almost pathetic to see someone get so much mass media against the rights of the most vulnerable people in America, people and children who are wrongfully injured, and he never has to back up what he is saying. So I challenged him to another debate a few years ago. And he said only if I don’t identify him as a partner of Covington and Burling.”
Nader said that “the main lobby – outside the corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce – that focuses on restricting your rights to have your day in court is the American Tort Reform Association.”
California Governor Jerry Brown
“And it’s run by a man who’s called Tiger Joyce,” Nader said. “I just learned he’s making over $400,000 a year plus benefits. Has he ever challenged you to a debate? Because he’s pretty aggressive.”
“No. I’ve never been challenged by him,” Doroshow said.
“You don’t want to be challenged by somebody named Tiger,” co-host Steve Skrovan said.
“Oh, I wouldn’t care,” Doroshow said.
“Well, you see, he’s also a Princeton graduate, I’m sorry to say,” Nader said. “And the mascot for Princeton is a tiger. But when it comes to Joanne Doroshow and challenging somebody who really can expose the fallacies of his argument, he’s a pussycat.”
Nader asked Doroshow to “tell us about Governor Jerry Brown’s history with the $250,000 cap for pain and suffering that has been imposed since 1976 on tens of thousands of vulnerable victims of malpractice in California. And what can we do to change that? Because that has led to a lot of other states saying, well, if you can do it in Jerry Brown’s Democratic California, why can’t we do it in Georgia and other states around the country? Capping at a $250,000 limit, no matter what the jury and judge think should be compensated.”
“Yes, this is a very sad situation,” Doroshow said. “In 1975, as you say, Jerry Brown was Governor the first time around. And he was one of the first people convinced by this notion that he had to restrict patients’ rights in order to bring down insurance rates for doctors. We found out shortly after that, in the 1970s, that this was all wrong. And that none of this was connected. Claims and insurance rates were not connected and people shouldn’t have had their rights taken away. But that law was put on the books in 1975 without even an inflation adjustment. So, recently there was, in the last election cycle, an attempt to try to just get an inflationary adjustment into that law. Because in 1975, a $250,000 cap was worth what would be at least over a million dollars today. So, it’s a terribly brutal cap. And all we were trying to do was get the cap raised slightly to keep up with inflation. The medical and insurance industry dumped a ton of money into the state, and ultimately convinced people not to do it. But Jerry Brown, who is now Governor, shouldn’t have had to even go through something like that. He should just sign a law to do that. He acknowledges, I believe, that what he signed back then was wrong, that he should not have signed it. But he won’t take any steps today to fix it. So it’s still the law in California.”
Nader said Brown “acknowledged in the early 90s in a statement to the press, that it was mistake.”
“He regrets it, and it should be changed,” Nader said. “But now he has two thirds control of the legislature, dominating it, he’s a popular governor, and he won’t stand up for children, who are wrongfully injured, for the elderly who have no wage loss, for home makers who don’t have a job but need to have compensation for pain and suffering in order to support their injuries year after year.”