::::::There's only one reference to overlawyered.  Everything else is the higher-brow Point of Law, which is published by two think tanks, is meant to be a serious reference for what tort reformers argue on various issues.   
 ::::::In terms of division, there's should be a generic pro/con category, but some of the links are better classified as relating to sub-issues.  Four of the anti links and one of the pro links have to do with descriptions of supporters and opponents and funding for the various sides; it would be better to put those five or six together, rather than segregate them by pro or con.  Another example: Tillinghast released a report describing the costs of the litigation system; EPI attacked it; Tillinghast defended it; EPI responded to the rebuttal.  All four links should be included (the reference section only includes the last three); it makes more sense to keep them together than to split them up.   
 ::::::(Slightly different issue: In addition, some tort reformers have criticized the Tillinghast report as underestimating the costs of the tort system because it doesn't include second-order effects; there's no mention of that at all in the article, only the anti-tort-reformers' allegations that the report overestimates.)  By the way, Tillinghast disputes the contention that the article was meant to support tort reform, so it shouldn't be in the pro sectionexcept the anti-reformers would argue the contrary because they're an actuarial firm that does some work with the insurance industry.   
 ::::::Paul Rubin's article supports some tort reforms and opposes othersdoes it go in pro or con?   
 ::::::I have to think there are better choices than CorpReform.com for the anti side.