Jack Fields: “Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the manner in which my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton]…”

“Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the manner in which my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton], brings this amendment, but it is our opinion that the language of the amendment as it is currently drafted does not write rule XI of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure into the law. The current system that this statute is dealing with makes it easy for entrepreneurial plaintiffs' lawyers to file speculative suits simply for their settlement value. There is little risk. Plaintiffs' lawyers take these cases on a contingency basis, and since over 90 percent of the cases settle, they are basically guaranteed a recovery. That is why we have come in with the language that we have. It is essential that reforms to the system must change the incentives so plaintiffs' lawyers will weigh the merits of the lawsuit before racing to the courthouse. The language that is in the statute is not an automatic loser-pay type of situation. Judges retain ample discretion under the statute as it is drafted. The court may impose attorney fees only when a party pursues a case that lacks substantial justification, and imposing the fee on the loser or making the winner pay his own fees would not be unjust. These will not be shifted in close cases, only those that should never have been brought. That is the purpose of this particular section of the statute.…”