John Conyers: “I would like the rest of my colleagues that are a party to this bill to take into consideration the American Bar…”

“I would like the rest of my colleagues that are a party to this bill to take into consideration the American Bar Association's evaluation of this measure. They say that the "loser pays" bill as amended, although extensive revisions have been made to this legislation, to the legislation as introduced, and were made by the Committee on the Judiciary, "serious problems remain with the current loser pays provisions of H.R. 988." "The case has not been made for jettisoning the tradition in this country of requiring each party to bear its own attorneys' fees. While some fee-shifting occurs under some State or Federal statutes and procedures, the heavy burden of persuasion must rest on proposers of such variance from the American rule. The American Bar Association is particularly troubled because of the accelerated timetable under which H.R. 988 has been considered in the House. There has been no opportunity to have this debate. "The ABA is concerned that H.R. 988 may undermine diversity jurisdiction and will surely encourage undesirable forum shopping. In addition, it imposes a requirement that is inconsistent with the American system of justice. Among the fundamental problems inherent in the current proposal is that it places an extra burden on the poor, the middle class, and small businesses who are entitled by law to choose a Federal forum. This extra burden is unrelated to the merits of their claims.”