Posted by Sharon on 7/08/10

More | Report Post

I can't tell. Were there checks enclosed in this Chamber
and insurance industry letter to legislators?

http://www.projo.com/news/content/MCCONNELL_DC_HEARING_06-
17-10_F4IT651_v5.15a59d1.html

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
R. BRUCE JOSTEN
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
1615 H STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20062-2000
202/463-5310
June 15, 2010

The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business
federation representing the interests of more than three
million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,
and region, strongly opposes the nomination of John “Jack”
McConnell to serve on the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

As detailed further in the attached multi-industry letter
that was sent to the Committee on May 11, 2010, the Chamber
believes that Mr. McConnell is unfit to serve this lifetime
appointment to the federal bench. Mr. McConnell’s actions
during his career as a personal injury lawyer and past
statements demonstrate his disregard for the rule of law,
an activist judicial philosophy and obvious bias against
businesses. In addition, if confirmed, Mr. McConnell
would have a clear conflict of interest because of future
compensation arrangements that he currently has in place
with his law firm employer for the next 15 years.

The Chamber urges you to oppose this nomination. Should the
Committee report Mr. McConnell’s nomination to the full
Senate, the Chamber would consider votes on, or in
relation to, this nomination in our annual How They Voted
Scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten
Cc: The Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Attachment

May 11, 2010
The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Chairman Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions:

The undersigned organizations write to express our strong
opposition to the nomination of John “Jack” McConnell to
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island. Mr. McConnell’s past statements, conduct as a
personal injury plaintiffs’ lawyer, and lackluster ABA
rating give us serious reservations about his fitness to
serve a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. We do
not raise these issues lightly, as our organizations have
historically stayed away from debates surrounding federal
district court nominees. But given Mr. McConnell’s record,
we believe that a response is warranted under the
circumstances.

Our opposition begins with Mr. McConnell’s mediocre rating
from the American Bar Association of “substantial majority
qualified, minority unqualified.” For a practicing lawyer
with 25 years of experience to obtain such a low rating
speaks poorly of his legal abilities, and likely means that
he generated negative comments from judges before whom he
appeared and/or from lawyers who know him.

Mr. McConnell’s ABA rating should come as no surprise given
his past statements that raise serious question about
whether he will follow precedent and the rule of law. For
example, in 1999, Mr. McConnell was hired on a contingency
fee basis by the State of Rhode Island to sue paint
companies under theories of liability that exceeded the
bounds of well-settled law. After nine years of protracted
litigation, and after millions of dollars spent by
defendants, the Rhode Island Supreme Court unanimously (4-
0) rejected Mr. McConnell’s misguided interpretation of
public nuisance law. Rather than respect the court’s
ruling, Mr. McConnell publicly attacked the Supreme Court’s
decision in an op-ed that he penned for The Providence
Journal, where he said that the justices “got [the
decision] terribly wrong” by letting “wrongdoers off the
hook.”

Mr. McConnell’s public criticism of the Rhode Island
Supreme Court’s lead paint ruling should also give the
Committee pause because it casts light on a judicial
philosophy that appears more outcome-driven than based on
interpreting and applying the law. Indeed, when viewed
against his philosophical views of “an active government”
that should not “stand on the sidelines,” a picture begins
to emerge of a judicial nominee who will legislate from the
bench.

We are equally concerned that Mr. McConnell lacks the
capacity to be an impartial jurist, especially against
business defendants who may appear before him. Mr.
McConnell has defined his career by suing business
defendants. As his own Committee questionnaire indicates,
of the top ten cases he views as the “most significant”
litigations of his legal career, all but two involve
actions against businesses, and none involved him
representing or defending a business. Worse still, when
asked by the Columbus Post Dispatch in 2006 about the
possibility of future lead paint litigation, he said that,
based on history, he had “absolutely no confidence” that
defendant paint companies would do the right thing. He
added “ [t]he only time is when they’re sued and
forced to by a jury.” How could a business hope to win in
Mr. McConnell’s courtroom when these statements show that
the deck is already stacked so heavily against them?
To be sure, Mr. McConnell’s ability to render fair and
impartial rulings from the bench should be eriously
questioned in light of potential significant financial
windfalls that he stands to recover for the next 15 years.
According to the McConnell questionnaire, he is scheduled
to receive millions of dollars annually through 2024 from
an organization closely tied with his current employer, the
Motley Rice plaintiffs’ lawyer firm. This has all the
appearance of a conflict of interest and it is truly
difficult to see how Mr. McConnell could render impartial
judgments in matters involving plaintiffs’ law firms while
simultaneously receiving millions of dollars in
compensation from another plaintiffs’ firm.

We ultimately fear that Mr. McConnell’s apparent bias
against business defendants, underlying judicial
philosophy, and questionable respect for the rule of law,
will lead to the multiplication of baseless lawsuits in his
courtroom with untold consequences to businesses large and
small across the country. Given the handful of judges who
currently serve on the District of Rhode Island court, it
is not hard to imagine a generation of enterprising
personal injury lawyers flocking to a new “magnet
jurisdiction” at the federal level with a chance to draw a
plaintiff-lawyer friendly judge. State courts like those in
Madison County, Illinois have amply demonstrated the
problems that can arise from courts that accept plaintiffs’
claims no matter what the merits.

Finally, as most litigators well know, federal district
courts retain wide swaths of effectively unreviewable
authority. As such, we urge the Committee to resist the
confirmation of a lawyer with an animus against one type of
defendant.

Like other litigants before our courts, the business
community seeks the evenhanded application of law to the
circumstances of their cases. After reviewing the record to
date, the undersigned strongly believe that Mr. McConnell
has not demonstrated that he would provide the kind of fair
notice and predictable rules that businesses need to order
their affairs. For this and the other foregoing reasons, we
urge you to oppose this nomination.

Sincerely,
US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
US Chamber of Commerce
American Insurance Association
American Tort Reform Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America

Cc: The Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Black Mold Claims Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST