Former Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker of McKenna Long and Aldridge is a well paid and articulate advocate for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So why does General Thurbert Baker neglect to disclose that he is a paid spokesman and lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Tort Reform arm) in their paid advocacy effort against consumer legal funding (or lawsuit lending as Thurbert Baker prefers to label it)? He recently penned an editorial for The Advertiser in Lafayette, Louisiana, (link provided below) where true to form he discloses his law firm and past as a former Georgia Attorney General and State Rep, but fails to mention his paid relationship with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Perhaps Thurbert Baker has concerns that disclosure might diminish his messaging that he is looking out to protect consumers?
Perhaps disclosing the truth that Thurbert Baker works for the same insurance companies that are defending themselves in the consumers' lawsuits might diminish his credibility?
Perhaps Thurbert Baker assumes that the citizens of Louisiana and members of the Louisiana General Assembly already know about McKenna Long and Aldridge's billing rates and corporate clients?
Perhaps Thurbert Baker feels the name Institute for Legal Reform sounds too Orwellian?
Perhaps people should know of Thurbert Baker's affiliation already because he took a selfie with U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donahue that went viral?
General Thurbert Baker fails to mention in his op-ed the stories of how consumers have been mistreated by the same insurance companies that they have faithfully paid insurance premiums to year after year. And Thurbert Baker ignores basic fundamentals of math and finance.
A friend of mine recently told me a story about his aunt and uncle. They were t-boned in their car by an uninsured motorist. The aunt was taken to the hospital, but once my friend saw the pictures of the accident scene he did not understand why. The passenger side of the vehicle was so indented there clearly could not have been a way for her to have survived the impact. His uncle sustained significant injuries but survived.
The uncle had been paying his premiums faithfully for 27 years to the same insurance agent. When he contacted the insurance agent to get his advice on how to file a claim, the agent clammed up. The insurance agent would not take his calls. The insurance agent would not talk to him after a 27 year relationship. The insurance company was now liable to him for compensation for his wife's death and the injuries he had sustained because of his uninsured motorist coverage. While trusting and not litigious, he eventually received guidance from a family member to retain an attorney to recover on his claim from the carrier he had been faithful to. He eventually recovered over $800,000 from the carrier, but only after having been forced into an adversarial, uncooperative relationship with his carrier.
Hopefully this horrific type of accident will never happen to you, but it happens often enough to the 50% of americans who have less than 6 months of savings for living expense, or $800 on average (which is probably pretty close to Thurbert Baker's hourly billing rate). They are then faced with a carrier that had "Good Hands" when taking their premium checks for them but now has boxing gloves on. And the carrier strategy is simple. Make a low offer early when they know the consumer is facing economic hardship, or sign up for a long drawn out battle that might take years.
Legal funding provides those consumers with an option. Sell off a small portion of your claim now, only repay if you win your case, and have the economic staying power to see your case to resolution. Consenting adults selling their own property, which can be done safely if there is full disclosure and attorney involvement. Sounds like a Republican supported proposition that tea party advocates would rally around, no?
Thurbert Baker's assertion in his op-ed that the companies that provide this service, legal funding, should be subject to lending laws is his clever way of killing this business. Thurbert Baker knows that these companies cannot make this type of proposition and only earn 10% to 27% that state lending laws dictate. Consumers make no monthly payments under these legal funding arrangements. Legal funding companies are not getting any recourse to the consumer - they are out their investment if the case does not settle. And the legal funding companies see loss rates much higher than subprime credit card providers experience, and charge much less than payday loan providers and higher yield products that do entail the creation of debt.
If Thurbert Baker does want to be a champion for the consumer, Thurbert Baker may want to start with his own disclosure to the public of who he works for and end by addressing the large pool of complaints that the insurance industry has over how it treats its own consumers when they have legitimate claims that they deserve to be compensated for.
Links for context:
Thurbert Baker's editorial in the Lafayette, Louisiana newspaper can be found below, along with a link to a counter-editorial printed in response to a similar editorial in Tennessee, along with an article that reports on the industry and its foes:
Thurbert Baker Op-Ed
Legal funding op-ed
Relevant Article