On the recordNovember 30, 2011
I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first thank Mr. Bishop for raising the important issue of frivolous, vexatious litigation. I am thrilled almost beyond words--not quite--almost beyond words that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the deleterious impact that frivolous, vexatious litigation has on our economy. We very much support, Mr. Chairman, a more effective use of rule 2011. We have consistently supported tort reform that correctly sanctions frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. So, again, I thank our colleague from the other side of the aisle for bringing attention once again to the impact frivolous litigation has on our economy. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the right vehicle for a number of reasons. The purpose of the underlying bill is to correct the misguided effort of the NLRB to have quick elections, which means the time is compressed for litigants, especially those caught off guard by the legal filing, to respond. What do litigants and their counsel do when they're given an inadequate time to prepare for litigation? They over-plead, they over-answer, they throw everything they can into the answer because to do otherwise is to risk missing an issue and being sued for illegal malpractice or, worse yet, failing to adequately represent your client. So in a very counterintuitive way, the NLRB's rush to have elections is more likely to result in over-pleading than the status quo would be. Mr.…





