Case Title: GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT CO. v. THOMPSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88925

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT CO. v. THOMPSON  GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT CO. v. THOMPSON 1998 OK 30 958 P.2d 128 69 OBJ 1404 Case Number: 88925, 88935 Decided: 04/14/1998 Mandate Issued: 06/30/1998 Supreme Court of Oklahoma GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, d/b/a The Oklahoma Publishing Co., THE OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING COMPANY, Petitioners vs. THE HONORABLE DONALD D. THOMPSON, Judge of the District Court of Creek County, Twenty- Fourth Judicial District, Respondent, and JESSIE HUFF DURHAM, an individual, and BEAU WILLIAMS, an individual, Real Parties in Interest. WORLD PUBLISHING CO, an Oklahoma corporation, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DONALD D. THOMPSON, Judge of the District Court of Creek County, Twenty- Fourth Judicial District, Respondent, and JESSIE HUFF DURHAM, an individual, and BEAU WILLIAMS, an individual, Real Parties in Interest. [958 P.2d 134] ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR A PREROGATIVE WRIT ¶ 0 Petitioners seek to prohibit respondent judge from proceeding further in a district court tort action in which they are defendants. The causes stand consolidated for disposition by a single opinion. ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE TAKEN; WRITS GRANTED B. J. Rothbaum, Von Russell Creel, Linn & Neville, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Petitioners Gaylord Entertainment Company and The Oklahoma Publishing Company in No. 88,925 J. Schaad Titus, Boone, Smith, Davis, Hurst & Dickman, Tulsa, Oklahoma for Petitioner World Publishing Co. in No. 88,935 W. C. Sellers, W.C. "Bill" Sellers, Inc., Sapulpa, Oklahoma and W. C. Sellers, Jr., Bill Sellers, Sapulpa, Oklahoma for Real Parties in Interest in Nos. 88,925 and 88,935 OPALA, J. ¶ 1 The dispositive issue tendered by the two consolidated original proceedings for a writ of prohibition is whether the district court action against the petitioners, now pending before the respondent judge, is dismissible for want of actionable quality. We draw from three different sources of law I THE ANATOMY ¶ 2 This court's original cognizance is invoked to prohibit further proceedings in an action by two lawyers, Jessie Huff Durham and Beau Williams [respondents or plaintiffs], against World Publishing Company, the Gaylord Entertainment Company d/b/a The Oklahoma Publishing Co., and The Oklahoma Publishing Company [collectively called newspapers, petitioners or defendants]. The lawsuit was also pressed against Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Inc. and five of its leaders [collectively called CALA], entities who are not parties to this original proceeding. ¶ 3 Plaintiffs allege in their second amended petition below that (a) the defendants joined in a conspiracy to undermine the democratic process and to injure the plaintiff "trial lawyers" Incorporation by Reference of the Plaintiffs' Exhibits ¶ 4 Although none of the newspaper articles was affixed to the second amended petition below, these instruments were made part of the materials pressed at nisi prius in the petitioners' dismissal quest and stand tendered by them for our consideration here. The parties are hence deemed to have adopted these materials as fit for our analysis in entertaining this cause. II RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS COURT ¶ 5 In this original proceeding the petitioners seek dismissal of the district court action against them because of its chilling effect on their fundamental-law liberties that are at stake in the trial court process - i.e., the constitutional right of free press and freedom of political speech.11 ¶ 6 A prerogative writ that may be granted in the exercise of this court's supervisory control over inferior courts, ¶ 7 The Availability of the Prerogative Writ Sought Herein Must Be Assayed by the Conley v. Gibson Standard ¶ 8 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action will not be sustained unless it should appear without doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim for relief. III THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS ¶ 9 The petitioners (newspapers) argue that the news articles and editorials ¶ 10 The plaintiffs counter that when the newspapers pledged large sums of money to CALA, they became "newsmakers" (rather than reporters) and ceased covering the developments [958 P.2d 138]fairly and accurately. According to the plaintiffs, the petitioners "conspired" to publish false and defamatory statements about the respondents as "trial lawyers" in order to limit their ability to represent their clients against the newspapers and CALA in tort actions. The plaintiffs argue that these actions amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress and injury to their reputation as well as to their property interest in the profession they practice. IV A. ¶ 13 Restraint upon free speech is prohibited by the terms of Art. 2 § 22, Okl. Const. ¶ 14 The phrase "free speech" [958 P.2d 139] is often equated with "political speech".¶ 15 The constitutional freedom of expression and discussion, if it is to fulfill its historic function, must embrace all issues about which information is needed (or appropriate) to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their time. 32 Advocacy for or against a proposed law is the purest form of political speech.33 The state cannot hence burden the free exchange of political ideas about the objective of an initiative proposal. 34 [958 P.2d 140] ¶ 16 The tension between the right to disseminate information to the public and the law of defamation is not new. It is mirrored in the eighteenth-century common law of England, ¶ 17 The respondents argue that the speech in suit does not enjoy protected political speech status because there is no evidence that an initiative petition was actually being drafted. Their narrow approach is not the standard for gauging a publication's status as political speech. The speech complained of as libelous concerns the CALA group's interest in changing state tort law via the initiative method. The political process of popular lawmaking is clearly the subject of the petitioners' news articles and editorials. It is immaterial that an initiative petition had not been filed at the time of the CALA letter and of the articles' publication. This is so because advocacy that launches an initiative drive is an essential part of the political process designed ultimately to impact the government. If there is a rational connection between the communication or utterance complained of as defamatory and the author's quest for a political change, the communication should be viewed as protected political speech and a means of securing a [958 P.2d 141] change in the government's conduct of its business. While the so-called offending conduct may be injurious (or offensive) to the plaintiffs' interests, it nonetheless constitutes protected political speech which must be more jealously and intensely guarded than any other form of permissible expression. ¶ 18 Absent some element of clearly unlawful activity by the speaker, the State can neither punish political speech nor make its utterances costly by imposing civil liability. Under our system of government, no one can be made civilly responsible or accountable to the government for robustly pressing political views that others oppose with equal vigor. To allow a defamation action to continue once it has been determined that the speech concerned protected political ideas and did not incite lawless action is in itself a violation of the constitution. ¶ 19 We recognize that the constitutional right to freedom of speech has never been considered absolute.¶ 20 A careful review of the publications in contest reveals constitutionally protected political speech. The respondents do not dispute that the two news reports 49 accurately reflect what was said by the persons quoted in the articles. In the news accounts no opinion is expressed about the topic of tort reform. Rather, what is given is a factual report of the proponents' and opponents' views of the initiative campaign to effect a change in the law. While the editorials certainly voice an opinion about the then-perceived legal system's tolerance for exaggerated damage claims, nothing in the writings targets (or is defamatory of) the plaintiffs or of the legal profession itself.¶ 21 The petitioners here cannot be haled into court for utterances or written expressions that fall under the rubric of political speech. To impose civil liability for reporting and editorializing about a significant political movement advocating a change in the law would be a serious violation of the State's free-speech-and-press guarantee. 50 The constitutional safeguard operates to render the petitioners' pled conduct impervious to civil liability.B. ¶ 23 The plaintiffs argue that, because the newspapers "pledged tens of thousands of dollars to CALA and were pledge-card carrying members of the CALA conspiracy," they stepped out of their role of news reporters and became newsmakers (or news creators). According to the plaintiffs, when the newspapers did this, they were no longer reporting fairly and accurately, but instead were furthering the ends of the conspiracy of which they were a part. This argument raises the question whether the actions of the newspapers - qua "pledge-card carrying" supporters of the CALA tort reform movement - are also to be deemed as shielded by the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Publications that advocate in support of a campaign to change the law by popular lawmaking are clearly beamed at members of the "largest legislative body in the state" - the electorate. 51 [958 P.2d 143] ¶ 24 The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is safeguarded in Art. 2 § 3, Okl. Const. ¶ 25 Just as we refrained from doing in Brock, ¶ 26 V ¶ 27 THE PUBLICATIONS IN QUESTION ARE ALSO PROTECTED FROM BEING ACTIONABLE BY THE § 1443.1 PRIVILEGE OF FAIR REPORT AND FAIR COMMENT ¶ 28 The ¶ 29 These statutory privileges are more narrow in scope than their common-law counterparts. The statute restricts the defense of fair report and fair comment to republications in the course of official action or proceedings, whereas the common-law privilege extends to communications on matters of public interest. ¶ 30 The process of changing statutory law or the State's constitution through the initiative route is a form of sanctioned popular lawmaking. ¶ 31 Shortly after CALA mailed a letter to test the waters for its tort reform campaign, the petitioners published news articles about the efforts of the initiative promoters. VI A. ¶ 34 According to the respondents' argument, the petitioners published "false, deceptive, fraudulent, and defamatory statements" relating to the plaintiffs, their profession and to the judicial branch of government. Unlike in Brock, ¶ 35 Actions for libel are statutorily defined. A publication is libelous per se (when the defamatory impact is apparent on its face) if it "exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation. . . ."74 To determine whether a publication is libelous per se, the writing must be measured by its natural and probable effect [958 P.2d 147] upon the mind of the average lay reader75 - i.e., if the article identifies the plaintiffs (in the minds of the lay reader) and imparts a defamatory statement.76 Those words are deemed actionable on their face which prejudicially impugn a person's skill, knowledge, or conduct in his (or her) business.77 A writing is actionable per se when the language used is susceptible of but a single meaning that is opprobrious.78 In contrast, a publication is deemed libelous per quod if the words are reasonably susceptible of both a defamatory and an innocent meaning.79 The latter form of libel requires proof by extrinsic facts to show a defamatory meaning. Whether a writing is libelous per se presents an issue of law for the trial court's resolution. A fact determination, if necessary to decide whether a publication is libelous per quod, is for the jury.80 ¶ 36 Oklahoma jurisprudence teaches that in group libel actions - where the opprobrium of publication attributable to an individual plaintiff arises solely by reason of one's membership in the group - (a) the size of the group alone is not controlling although it is a factor to be considered and (b) the intensity of suspicion cast upon the plaintiff is the true test in determining a plaintiff's right to maintain a personal action for group libel. ¶ 37 Statements in CALA's November 14, 1994 letter were held in Brock not to target legal professionals, but rather were found plainly germane to reporting the political objectives of the CALA promoters. Their publication was designed to explain the presence of a need for the proposed legislation. ¶ 38 Based on the four corners of the petition and applying the Conley v. Gibson B. ¶ 40 A civil conspiracy consists of a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. ¶ 41 The plaintiffs below urge that the newspapers entered into a conspiracy with CALA to undermine the democratic process through a campaign to publish false and defamatory information about the plaintiff trial lawyers, their profession and about the Oklahoma court system. The plaintiffs seek to vindicate the claim of conspiracy among the defendants by employing civil process. The only defamatory publications which plaintiffs attribute to the defendants-newspapers are the five articles that were published after CALA's November 14, 1994 letter had launched its tort reform campaign. The gist of the plaintiffs' complaint is that the alleged conspiracy has damaged their reputation qua lawyers as well as caused tortious interference with their business relations. ¶ 42 In Brock we held there was no element of unlawfulness in CALA's act of joining with others to bring about a legal change by lawful means (via the initiative or by petitioning the government). ¶ 43 Within the meaning of the Conley v. Gibson C. ¶ 45 Oklahoma recognizes as an independent tort the intentional infliction of emotional distress. ¶ 46 The offensive publications in this case scenario are both protected and nondefamatory. These two characteristics, when combined, take the tendered petitioners' conduct out of that category which makes it actionable under the tort-of-outrage rubric. ¶ 47 Measured by the Conley v. Gibson standard, the respondents cannot advance against the petitioners a tort-of-outrage claim that would warrant relief. VII ¶ 49 The respondents appear to press a common-law claim for tortious interference with advantageous business relations.96 We need not examine in detail [958 P.2d 150] the particular elements of this cause of action. If there is no component of unlawfulness in either the objective of the agreement or in the means by which the purpose or objective is to be accomplished, there can be no actionable tort of interference with advantageous relations.97 ¶ 50 A review of plaintiffs' complaints fails to disclose any allegations of "unlawful" means used by the newspapers to interfere with the plaintiffs' prospective or present business relationships. Any publication that falls within the state constitutional freedom of political speech cannot be viewed as an act of tortious interference with a lawyer's advantageous business relations. Measuring this claim by the Conley v. Gibson test, ¶ 51 Today's holding that the plaintiffs have failed to state against the petitioners a claim upon which relief may be afforded has its basis in the political speech protections afforded by the various clauses of the Oklahoma Constitution. U. S. Supreme Court jurisprudence need not be invoked as dispositive in passing upon rights guaranteed by state constitutional provisions. The Oklahoma Constitution affords bona fide separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which today's opinion is rested. VII SUMMARY ¶ 52 Prohibition will lie to arrest pending proceedings when the remedy of appeal is manifestly inadequate to protect against the chilling effect of a civil action on fundamental political freedom, and the litigation to be arrested by prohibition lacks actionable quality. The state constitutional shield surrounding the freedom of political speech protects these petitioners from the burden of defending themselves in court for the conduct that forms the basis of the action that the plaintiffs seek to prosecute. ¶ 53 Based on the four corners of the second amended petition (with recognized materials) and applying the Conley v. Gibson[958 P.2d 151] ¶ 54 ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE TAKEN; WRITS GRANTED. ¶ 55 SUMMERS, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER and OPALA, JJ., and STRUBHAR, S.J. (sitting by designation in lieu of KAUGER, C.J., who certified her recusal), concur; ¶ 56 WILSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part; ¶ 57 SIMMS, HARGRAVE and WATT, JJ., dissent. ¶ 58 APPENDIX A The Daily Oklahoman November 17, 1994 News Article ¶ 59 "BUSINESSMEN PLAN PETITION SEEKING TORT REFORM ¶ 60 By Mick Hinton Capitol Bureau ¶ 61 Frustrated by what they consider frivolous lawsuits and exorbitant attorney fees, some leading Oklahoma businessmen are planning a statewide initiative petition drive early next year. ¶ 62 Oklahoma City banker David Rainbolt said Wednesday the petitions will call for tort reform, which would be a boon to economic development. ¶ 63 "Businesses look for states where the cost of doing business can held keep them competitive," said Rainbolt, chief executive officer of BancFirst. ¶ 64 "In terms of a runaway civil justice system, Texas, is one of the worst in the nation. It would give us a heck of a recruiting tool," he said. ¶ 65 But Emmanuel Edem, president of the Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association, said Wednesday, "We will agree to limit attorneys fees when they limit the cost of money that their banks can charge the consumer." ¶ 66 "It is un-American to single out a profession and by legislative action to list the fees that a person can charge." ¶ 67 One of the petitions is intended to assure that in cases with very large settlements, that punitive damages will never exceed actual damages. ¶ 68 Rainbolt said in a Tulsa case several years ago, a hospital was assessed punitive damages 50 times the amount of actual damages. ¶ 69 He said the hospital, customers and public have to make up the difference because punitive damages are uninsurable. ¶ 70 Edem responded that such an award is necessary to get the hospital's attention. He said the case in point involved a patient recovering from surgery who mistakenly was subjected to a second operation. ¶ 71 Rainbolt said the businessmen are resorting to circulating petitions because they have been repeatedly unsuccessful when they tried to get a bill before either House of the Legislature. ¶ 72 One of the proposed petitions says that a judge, rather than a jury, would set punitive awards. It also would limit the amount of punitive damages. ¶ 73 Punitive damages would not be awarded unless the jury is persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant either acted with gross negligence or acted intentionally with malice toward the plaintiff. ¶ 74 The second petition would set a sliding scale for the amounts attorneys could charge. ¶ 75 Their contingency fees would be limited to 33 percent of the amount awarded up to the first $100,000; to 20 percent of the next $900,000, and 10 percent of any award more than $1 million." ¶ 76 APPENDIX B The Daily Oklahoman November 28, 1994 Editorial ¶ 77 "FOR TORT REFORM [958 P.2d 152] ¶ 78 The multi-million-dollar damage lawsuit award to the California woman who spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap while driving her car underscores the dire need for major tort reform in the nation. ¶ 79 The Republican "Contract With America" includes a promise to push for legislation to restrain frivolous damage lawsuits and reasonable limits on punitive awards to plaintiffs. ¶ 80 The mindset of many citizens who serve on juries -- molded like clay in the hands of sometimes greedy and unscrupulous lawyers -- is that such outlandish awards cost only the insurance companies or large corporations with deep pockets. ¶ 81 The consuming public gets it in the neck, as real people pick up the tab. Large punitive awards -- as opposed to reasonable compensation for demonstrated injury -- drive up the prices of products and contribute to skyrocketing medical costs. ¶ 82 That damage-suit mania or runaway litigation is the target of a group of Oklahoma businessmen which has formed an organization to conduct an initiative petition drive for tort reform. Its strategy calls for circulation of two petitions aimed at limiting punitive damage awards and setting a sliding scale limiting contingency legal fees in civil cases to a maximum of 33 percent of an award. (Lawyers sometimes get up to 50 percent of awards made to clients.) ¶ 83 The businessmen are on the right track. Meaningful tort reform has always had as much chance in the Oklahoma Legislature as the snowball in you know where. That's because of the major influence wielded in the Legislature by trial lawyers who vigorously oppose such changes. Still you'd think the trial lawyers and their pals would get a clue: Both Frank Keating (47 percent of the gubernatorial vote) and Wes Watkins (23 percent) campaigned as tort reformers. ¶ 84 A popular vote holds the promise of successful, long overdue reforms. It should help also that tort reform is included in the agenda Gov. - elect Keating said he will push during his administration." ¶ 85 APPENDIX C Tulsa World November 16, 1994 News Article ¶ 86 "LAWSUIT LIMIT BID IN WORKS Petition effort under way to ask Sooner voters to limit lawsuit awards and lawyer fees. ¶ 87 By Brian Ford World Capitol Bureau ¶ 88 Oklahoma City -- Saying the state is paying too high a price for frivolous lawsuits, a group of Tulsa and Oklahoma City businessmen are preparing statewide initiative petitions to limit punitive awards and lawyer fees. ¶ 89 Oklahomans Against Frivolous Lawsuits, a new organization, is preparing two initiative petitions to be circulated early next year, said John A. Brock, the president of the group. Brock, who runs Rockford Exploration Inc. in Tulsa, said he would like to see the proposed state questions put to voters at the November 1996 general election. ¶ 90 George Kaiser, chairman of Bank of Oklahoma and president of Kaiser-Francis Oil Corp., and David Rainbolt, head of Banc First in Oklahoma City, are also involved in the upcoming petition drive, Brock said. ¶ 91 Brock said high punitive damage awards in civil cases and lawyer fees have become a drag on the state's economy. ¶ 92 Brock said he, Kaiser, Rainbolt and others are "concerned with runaway litigation in this state." For example, liability costs boosts the price of football helmets twice what they would normally cost, he said. Immunity shots cost three times as much as they should, thanks to liability costs, he said, and a doctor may have to pay up to $100 a day for malpractice insurance. ¶ 93 Certain airplane manufacturers no longer make small aircraft because they can no longer afford high liability costs, Brock said. ¶ 94 One of the group's initiative proposals would prohibit court awards with punitive damages unless the jury has "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant displayed [958 P.2d 153] gross negligence or reckless disregard to the plaintiff; or the defendant acted intentionally with malice toward the plaintiff. ¶ 95 The judge would determine the amount of the punitive award rather than the jury, Brock said. ¶ 96 If a jury found that a defendant acted with gross negligence or reckless disregard, the award could not exceed actual damages or $250,000, whichever is more. ¶ 97 If a jury found that the defendant acted with malace, [sic] the award could be as high as twice the actual damage or $500,000, whichever is more. ¶ 98 The second initiative would limit contingency fees earned by lawyers in civil cases. Contingency fees are usually based on the amount of an award the plaintiff receives. ¶ 99 Under the proposal, contingency fees could not exceed 33 percent of the first $100,000 in punitive awards; 20 percent of the next $900,000; and 10 percent of any award more than $1 million. Brock claimed attorneys now receive up to half of punitive awards. ¶ 100 Proponents of large punitive awards say they are needed to catch the attention of large industries that manufacturer [sic] faulty or unsafe products or put out unsafe services. ¶ 101 Brock agreed that punitive damages should punish wrongdoers, but believes there are two [sic] many cases where punitive awards are too high. ¶ 102 "The fundamental reason we are doing this is to help the state's economic situation," he said. "The state of Texas has just gone crazy (with lawsuits) and people are flocking out of California to get away from this sort of thing. This is one of the principal causes for the reduction of the standard of living in this country." ¶ 103 Brock said attempts have been made to reduce punitive awards through state legislation, but such attempts have repeatedly been blocked. He said too many state lawmakers are "owned" by trial attorneys. ¶ 104 The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry has indicated it will support the initiative petitions as they are presently proposed. ¶ 105 Gov. - elect Frank Keating has also said he supports making punitive damages more difficult to get. ¶ 106 Under state law, the petitioners will have 90 days from the start of their drives to get the required number of signatures. ¶ 107 If the petitioners seek a change in state law, they will require 79,601 valid signatures, which is 8 percent of the highest number of votes cast in last Tuesday's general election. If the petitioners seek a change in the state Constitution, they will need 149,552 valid signatures, 15 percent of the votes cast in the last general election. ¶ 108 Brock estimated that the initiative effort, combined with the campaign to convince people to vote for the proposed state questions, could cost as much as $3 million. He said his organization would seek donations from businesses across the state to fund the effort." ¶ 109 APPENDIX D Tulsa World November 17, 1994 and February 13, 1995 Editorials ¶ 110 A. November 17, 1994 ¶ 111 "FINALLY, TORT REFORM One of the desirable codicils contained in the Republicans "Contract With America" is the promise to push for federal legislation to limit frivolous damage lawsuits and to put reasonable limits on punitive damage awards to plaintiffs in such suits. ¶ 112 Damage-suit mania has taken a terrible toll on American business and has not exactly been a blessing for consumers, either. Huge punitive awards, as opposed to legitimate compensation for demonstrated injury, have driven up the prices of products from ladders to football helmets, contributed to the skyrocketing cost of medical service and, in the case of small aircraft, nearly driven American manufacturers out of an entire business. ¶ 113 Now, in addition to the national movement, it appears there is a good [958 P.2d 154] chance in Oklahoma to restrain runaway litigation. ¶ 114 A group of prominent Tulsa and Oklahoma City businessmen has formed an organization to conduct an initiative petition drive for tort reform. The group hopes to circulate two petitions early next year and to have the proposals on the 1996 general election ballot. One would limit punitive damage awards and the other would limit lawyers' contingency fees in civil cases. Damage-suit lawyers sometimes get up to 50 percent of awards made to their clients. ¶ 115 These common-sense proposals are long overdue. The trial lawyer-dominated Legislature has been unable to act on them. Taking them to the people in the form of initiative petitions is the best, and probably only, way to get them accomplished." ¶ 116 B. February 13, 1995. ¶ 117 "BULL'S-EYES FOR KEATING ¶ 118 Some of the best ideas in Gov. Frank Keating's program have been overshadowed by his controversial, education-bashing budget. ¶ 119 And that's a shame because, when you get past his budget, this new governor has some proposals that could go a long way toward boosting Oklahoma's economy without costing taxpayers a dime. ¶ 120 Idea No. 1 is tort reform, i.e., changes to bring some fairness to the way claims for damages are handled in this state. Any state that could offer some reasonable relief from frivolous, shakedown lawsuits and capricious punitive damage awards would have a terrific selling point for new industry. ¶ 121 The same can be said for the governor's general plans to improve the workers compensation system. He made a start by promising to appoint industrial court judges who have not been regular members of the workers comp bar. This isn't to say that workers-comp attorneys are bad. Most of them are honest, hard-working attorneys who are quite good at what they do. It is the system that is at fault, and the system could best be improved by judges who have not been a part of it. The problem cries out for fresh thinking, unfettered by the voice that says: We cannot change because we have always done it this way. ¶ 122 Keating also is on target with his plan to settle the right-to-work issue in Oklahoma. He says he will push for a right-to-work law in the Legislature and, failing that, will support an initiative petition. ¶ 123 You wonder why no one thought of this before. With luck, Oklahoma will wind up with a right-to-work law, which will make the state more competitive in recruiting industries that consider the law important. But even if the push for right to work should be defeated in a popular vote, it will get this acrimonious issue out of the limelight. The repetitious, rancorous argument over right to work creates an impression that Oklahoma has some kind of serious labor problem, which it does not." ¶ 124 APPENDIX E The November 14, 1994 CALA Letter ¶ 125 "November 14, 1994 Gentlemen: ¶ 126 Frivolous lawsuits result in unnecessary litigation costs or the extortion of unjustified settlements. The impact on the standard of living and quality of life of Oklahoma citizens is enormous. Economic growth is stunted by increased costs of doing business and suppressed innovation, restricting job opportunities and wages. Our local governments and school systems have been robbed of precious resources that should be allocated to building infrastructure and educating our children. Directly and indirectly all productive people suffer from the abuse of our civil justice system. ¶ 127 For years concerned citizens and associations have made a concerted effort to address these problems through legislation. The results have been dismal. The Trial Lawyers Association has typically prevented tort reform bills from even being heard in committee: hardly democracy at work. A [958 P.2d155] near majority of members of Oklahoma's State Senate are themselves attorneys. Years of such oppression as well as recent discussions with legislative and civil leaders make it clear there will be no relief from the state legislature. ¶ 128 Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse is being organized to change our Constitution in a manner which will materially reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and make our courts more equitable. Our goal . . . pass the two initiative petitions summarized below. The result . . . heightened productivity and product development through a reduction in the legal bureaucracy. The business development climate in Oklahoma will be enhanced (especially relative to Texas, our notoriously litigious neighbor) and more job opportunities will result. ¶ 129 Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse has selected these two initiatives because we believe they are: 1) understood by the general public; 2) popular amongst survey respondents; and 3) a broad impact. Initiative number one is designed to give innocent defendants greater access to the courts by reducing the extortionistic value of large punitive damage requests which are unrelated to the alleged actual damages. The second creates a minimum quality of lawsuit that makes economic sense to be filed by limiting the fees an attorney can charge on a contingency basis. ¶ 130 Initiative Petition No. 1 - Punitive Damages (summary only) ¶ 131 Limitation on Recovery of Punitive Damages. Punitive damages will not be awarded unless the jury is persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant: (l) acted with gross negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, or (2) acted intentionally with malice toward the plaintiff. ¶ 132 The judge will determine the amount of the punitive damages. If the defendant acted with gross negligence or reckless disregard for the plaintiff, but not intentionally and maliciously, the judge may award punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff or $250,000, whichever is more. If the defendant acted intentionally with malice toward the plaintiff, the judge may award punitive damages in an amount not to exceed twice the actual damages or $500,000, whichever is more. ¶ 133 Initiative Petition No. 2 - Contingent Fees - Limitation on Amount (summary only) ¶ 134 It shall be unlawful for contingent attorneys fees of a client's cause of action to exceed: (A) 33% of the first $100,000. (B) 20% of the next $900,000. and (C) 10% of any sum over $1,000,000 of the net amount (after direct costs) of any judgment as may be recovered or any compromise or settlement as may be made. ¶ 135 Our statewide polling indicates that 77% of the voters would vote for a cap on punitive damages (with 6% undecided) and 88% would vote for a cap on attorneys contingent fees (with [unintelligible] % undecided). These are the most popular of the seven issues considered. ¶ 136 We want your organization to join the effort by becoming a member of our steering committee. As you know, challenging the trial lawyers and taking our message to the people will be an expensive process. As you can see in the attached budget draft, we estimate it will cost approximately $600,000 to secure incontrovertible petitions, complete the legal drafting and defend the challenges that are certain to come. Thereafter, a media campaign could cost an additional $1.5 to $2.5 million. Consequently, we will eventually plan on soliciting your membership for financial assistance once our 501-C-4 is formed. ¶ 137 Attached is a very general time frame we wish to pursue. Obviously, decisions on the final language of the initiatives, promotional material, media content and infinite other strategic details will be taken up by the steering committee and the respective experts they hire. However, we need a "leap of faith" to some extent at this point in time as we form the nucleus of our group. Oklahoma needs to be responsive to its citizens, [ 958 P.2d 156 ] not to lawyers. The time for change is now!" (Emphasis supplied.) FOOT