NOVAK:   What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. That old joke, like countless others, expresses everyone's distaste for money-grubbing, court- clogging, fast-talking, sleazy lawyers. In the CROSSFIRE from New York is attorney, former judge, former CNN colleague and now the very able Court TV anchor Catherine Crier. 
CRIER:   Bob, you enjoyed that intro too much. 
NOVAK:   She's the author of a new book called "The Case Against Lawyers." And with us to defend the honor of the legal profession, if there is such a thing, is George Washington University law professor and our frequent guest John Banzhaf. 
BEGALA:   Catherine Crier, of course, always good to have you back on CNN. I agree with your fundamental part that there a lot of scummy lawyers out there. A whole lot of them defend really scummy corporations that rip us off, kill and maim us with their defective products. But there are some good guys and gals in the business who sue on behalf of consumers. Let me read you just a partial list of products that you and I can use now that are safe because of lawsuits filed against these dirt bag corporations. We now have safety belts, shatter-proof glass, air bags, non-flammable pajamas. They stopped the Ford Pinto from blowing up and Firestone tires from exploding. They're crawling up your air bags. We got -- the Dalcon shield was banned. Asbestos. Kid cribs are now safe. Surgical ventilators.    I'm not even going to read them all, Catherine. You should have a little chapter in your book thank God for consumer lawyers, right? 
CRIER:   Oh my God. The thing that's so funny is people assume we're talking about all lawyers. There are some good lawyers, there are some good lawsuits, there are appropriate rules in certain situations. But the lawyers now have us so dominated by their ability to manipulate the laws, to selectively enforce the law and have them made for them on Capitol Hill that we are no longer living in a democracy. I submit to you. There are plenty of things when you look at the fatty food litigation is a brilliant example. Do we want lawyers going to court to decide for the people of America whether we can have our french fries? Of course not. 
BANZHAF:   I've got to respond to that. But, Paul, the problem is -- if I read Catherine Crier's interviews correctly, she wants to change the system so these suits can no longer be brought. She wants to get rid of what we call a contingency fee, make the loser pay the winner's costs. Now, I want to ask the audience for a minute. We can get the camera out there. If you or a bread winner were in family were severely injured...    ... by a car company, could you afford to go out and spend $100,000 to litigate and possibly have to pay two or $300,000 for the other side's legal fees? How would be able to do that? Put up your hand. Let me see how many of you could do that. 
NOVAK:   That was the American Trial Lawyers' list... 
BANZHAF:   And you speak for the people. 
NOVAK:     to people. A Harris Poll of this year, prestige of occupations, it's something they do every year. Let's take a look at it. Scientist 51 percent, doctor 50 percent, military officer 47 percent, lawyer 15 percent. And those, I think are mostly relatives. 
CRIER:   John was throwing out saying we're going to eliminate all of the poor people who can't take on the corporations. Contingency fees were created for that group. Now the lawyers are partners in virtually every litigation down the pike in the civil courts. They're partners. What do partners want? They want to maximize their profits, they want to push things as far as they can, justice be damned. And in fact, when they're in major business litigation or mass tort litigation, they're making millions of dollars. Often times their clients come away with a coupon or something for a free drink on American Airlines and they act like they're doing them a favor. This is absolutely absurd. 
BANZHAF:   Quote, "Get rid of those contingency fees, make the losers pay. The lawyers are making a hell of a lot of money. But for every dollar they get the clients get two or $3." You got pay lawyers big if you want them to go after big tobacco. 
CRIER:   Why? 
BANZHAF:   If you want them to go after the Ford Pinto, if you want them to go after the giants. You take away the contingency fee and make the loser pay, there's nobody in this audience is willing to put up their hand and say, yes,if I were injured, even if my lawyer said I got 75 percent chance of winning, 80 percent chance of winning, how many of you would be willing to risk a couple hundred thousand dollars to  ? 
CRIER:   John, what you're doing is talking about a handful of cases when in fact the American people are having to pay through the nose because of a lot of frivolous litigation brought with contingency fees or minor litigation that didn't belong in the courts in the first place. And if those contingency fees were removed, in all but the cases of impoverishment, then the attorneys would not bring those. 
BANZHAF:   You and you fellow judges have a weapon against this, it's called the Rule 11 Sanction which not only permits you but requires you to sanction people for frivolous lawsuits. 
CRIER:   As long as judges are elected in most jurisdictions, those judges are being put in office, if you will, by the big trial lawyers of this country and they are not going exercise what you quoted as a federal court rule, which may not always apply in the state courts that are certainly not utilized. Secondarily, secondarily -- let me finish -- the loser -- let me finish -- the loser pays again. It's a situation that if you bring a frivolous lawsuit, the judge that we've put on the bench to make a reasoned decision can assign court costs and attorney's fees to you.    Wait a minute. If you have brought an appropriate lawsuit -- let me finish my sentence. Let me finish my sentence. Counselor, for God's sakes, let me finish... 
BEGALA:   Everybody retreat to their neutral corners. Mr. Novak. 
NOVAK:   Speaking of frivolous lawsuits, we're going to put up on the screen some of the people you've sued. Let's take a look at it. Hertz, Spiro Agnew... 
BEGALA:   You won that one. 
NOVAK:   The Interstate Commerce Commission, dry cleaners, hair salons, male-only clubs, the National Park Service, Representative Barney Frank, Mrs. Simpson's dance (ph) classes, McDonald's, the University of Michigan, the Department of Justice and Victoria's Secret. 
BANZHAF:   You didn't tell people that we won every damn suit, so they are clearly not frivolous. 
CRIER:   And there's the problem. There's the problem. 
BANZHAF:     our lawsuits frivolous for years; two experts said we'd never win a smoker's suit -- we've now won over $250 billion. So these are not frivolous. And that's a problem with Catherine Crier. 
CRIER:   Bob, just because he won the suit, doesn't mean they're right. In fact, those lawsuits have taken us... 
BANZHAF:   But they're not frivolous. Frivolous means no way in hell can you win. If you win the suits, they're not frivolous. 
CRIER:   No, no, that's not right, because you have stretched the law beyond its breaking point. When you go to England and you get that coffee case, what did the judge do? He said, most people realize that when you get a cup of coffee, you want it hot. It is a hot liquid. If you spill it on yourself, it's called being a klutz. The judge in England said that. 
BEGALA:   Let me ask you, maybe it was in the heat of the moment, everybody's all agitated here, you didn't really mean it when you said just because he won doesn't mean he was right. Because that's suggesting that you trust 12 old white men on a corporate board who have billions at stake in a decision more than -- excuse me, more than 12 disinterested ordinary Americans to rule justice? I have faith in juries. Why don't you? 
CRIER:   Got to answer that, John. Now, Paul, how many of those cases are in fact dealing with the American people? You think that every tort case is against a big company. What about the little dry cleaner family operation? What about the national park system that we're seeing lawsuits where some drunkard... 
BEGALA:   I have faith in juries... 
CRIER:   ... that in fact the thermal pool -- they fall into thermal pool in Yellowstone -- may well have to close down one of these days because they can't keep it open. Those aren't the big corporations. This is all of America getting hit by these absurd lawsuits. 
NOVAK:   Do you trust a jury that gives a multi-million dollar verdict to somebody who got shot and gives it -- and makes the people who made the gun pay it because they didn't have a safety lock when there's no law for a safety lock? That's a runaway jury, isn't it? 
BANZHAF:   Bob, if you understood anything about the law, I think you'd support the decision also. 
NOVAK:   Thank God I don't understand anything about the law, because  . 
CRIER:   John's been making it up along with a lot of lawyers, and unfortunately some judges are falling for it. 
NOVAK:   Last word, Catherine? 
CRIER:   I was going to say that unfortunately they have stretched the law and created a lot of case precedents, but just because they've convinced one jury or one judge someplace does not make it right. 
BANZHAF:   Yeah, but I'm winning all my suits, Catherine. You haven't won any of yours. 
CRIER:   Oh, I haven't? 
NOVAK:   Catherine Crier, thank you. 
CRIER:   You bet. 
BEGALA:   Just ahead, a check of the hour's top news stories in the CNN "News Alert." And then, the perceptive,  , dare I say brilliant new book that ought to be required reading at the White House and no doubt will be as soon as it comes out in a comic book version. Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson are going to try to gang up on me and my book, "It's Still the Economy, Stupid." And since liberal ideas are scientifically proven to be twice as strong as conservative ideas, such matchup seems about fair. Stay with us.
