As a conservative who is not so sure about the wisdom of some tort reform efforts, I was thrilled to see the Denver Post report that that federal judge Richard Matsch (remember him from the Timothy McVeigh trial?)

recently got so infuriated by the conduct of two highly regarded trial attorneys that he overturned a jury’s $51 million verdict, then ordered the lawyers to pay the fees and costs of the opposing lawyers, a sum that could total several million dollars.

There are good lawyers around (if you look really hard), but the bulk (as necessary as they are) understand one thing: Money. And it’s almost always other people’s money. Lawyers love their fees, and they love being awarded fees in judgments. But having to pay another party’s fees? Unheard of. Therefore, I’m sure these lawyers are sitting up and taking notice.

And keep in mind, lawyers have a leg up in that if one chooses to be frivolous on his own behalf, he has free access to the system because he’s not racking up huge fees when he works for himself, yet if he wins, he can be reimbursed huge fees for his work on his own behalf. Civilians don’t get to charge $250 an hour for the time they took to prepare their responses and work with their counsel. Everything a bad apple attorney files must be answered in some manner, costing his opposition lots and lots of money (even if they are in the right).

As for tort reform, we all pay the price for huge verdicts. However, we all have a right–and rightly so–to sue for damages when companies make dangerous products or a professional exhibits gross negligence. It can sometimes be attractive to think about limiting awards in tort cases, but any reform that is to be done must allow for people to be made whole and for punitive damages that are indeed punitive. It’s a big issue, and both parties should tread carefully.

But this gets me to the nub of the issue. When the legal community gets better about self-regulation and judges throw out obviously frivolous suits, like Judge Matsch did in this case, it may help to stop knee-jerk tort reform overreactions.

But how groundbreaking is Matsch’s ruling?

“In 42 years of litigation, I’ve never seen a judge set aside a verdict, then award fees to opposing counsel,” said local attorney Robert Miller, of Perkins Coie LLP. “There are times when a verdict is set aside, and times when lawyers are sanctioned. But I’ve never heard of them happening in one case.

“Judge Matsch does some things that are out there, but he’s usually right. Very infrequently is he reversed on appeal.”

And such was this case:

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals … affirmed Matsch’s decision to overturn the verdict.

Kudos to Judge Matsch. Here’s hoping others will follow his lead.

—

For some enlightening fiction on the tort issues, I highly recommend John Grisham’s The King of Torts and The Appeal.