Texas Democratic Party: Moving Texas Forward

Tyler attorney Blake Bailey, 63, has tried over 150 jury trials ranging from negligence, consumer and environmental protection, to industrial disease. He has also acted as lead counsel in approximately 40 appellate decisions.

A native of Marlin, Texas, Bailey worked his way through Texas Christian University and Baylor Law School while supporting a family. After graduating from law school in 1973, he practiced law in Henderson for several years before opening his own law office in Tyler.

Bailey is board certified in personal injury trial law and civil appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has served as president and director of several professional organizations: Past Director and President of the East Texas Trial Lawyers Association; past Director of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association; Diplomat, past President of American Board of Trial Advocates – East Texas Chapter (1995); and a sustaining member of the American Trial Lawyers Association. He is also a Diplomat in the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Jurisdictions admitted to practice include all state courts, federal courts in the Eastern District of Texas, Federal Claims Court, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth District, the United States Federal Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.

Blake Bailey has lectured at several law schools, the Texas State Bar and many professional association seminars. He has recently returned from Russia, where he lectured on American Law at Perm State.

Featured in Fortune Magazine as one of the top 500 lawyers in America, Mr. Bailey has written numerous articles for several legal publications. He is also the author of three published novels.

Last year, Bailey established “The Good Samaritan” scholarship at Tyler Junior College, available to qualified students that promise to somehow “pay it forward” by making a moral commitment to help someone else. The first recipient will receive the scholarship in 2010.

He has four children. His son, Blake Jr., works as his campaign treasurer.

As a trial lawyer and civil appellate lawyer for the past three decades, I take pride in the fact that I represent only those individuals who seek my help, and whose cases I believe have merit.

I fight hard for the rights of my clients, but in recent years, the deck has been stacked against them in the Texas Supreme Court.

I say this because several times, in trying to settle cases through mediation, insurance company representatives have told me they weren’t concerned about the outcome of a jury trial because an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court virtually assured them a victory.

More often than not, they were correct. This is not only disheartening to me as an advocate for my clients, but is an embarrassment to me as a member of the Texas Bar.

David A. Anderson, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, has published a statistical evaluation of opinions published by the Texas Supreme Court. Winter, 2007 26 Rev. Litig. 1 The entire article can be seen at www.baileyforsupremecourt.com.

Even considering nominal awards for the plaintiff, Anderson found that in 2004 and 2005, the court ruled in favor of defendants 87% of the time. In the same time period, the court found “no evidence” to support a plaintiff’s verdict in 82% of the cases in which a no-evidence claim was presented. This was despite the fact that in most of these decisions, the jury, the trial judge, and the three judges in the court of appeals had considered the evidence sufficient.

Anderson compared the Texas Supreme Court’s opinions regarding lawsuits against Wal-Mart from 1998 through 2005 to that of other state supreme courts, reasoning that the cases would be comparable. Outside of Texas, Wal-Mart won only 56% of their appeals. In Texas, it was 100%.

My opponent has received large donations from business and insurance groups and her campaign boasts of how judicial “reform” has made Texas a better place for business.

The role of a judge is to dispense justice fairly and impartially, not to favor one group over another.

The remedy for this obvious bias against individuals is not to twist opinions the other way to “get even.” The remedy is to issue carefully considered opinions, devoid of any personal or political agenda.

The challenge for today’s judiciary is to consider the wisdom of long-held legal opinions and apply it to our ever-changing world. At one time, a landowner had rights to his property “to the heavens.” One can only imagine how many times American Airlines would be guilty of trespass if the definition of land ownership had not changed.

The right to trial by jury was considered by Thomas Jefferson to be of paramount importance — greater, even, than the right to vote.

When the Supreme Court of Texas issues a finding of “no evidence,” and they are doing so at an alarming rate, they are in effect saying that the decisions of the 12 citizens who listened to the evidence as it was presented, the trial judge and the three Court of Appeals judges were ‘unreasonable’. This action is tantamount to stealing our right to a trail by jury….a right that is guaranteed by both the U.S. and Texas constitutions.

This is a right that should be preserved for all Texans.

In his op-ed yesterday, Blake Bailey pointed out that Wal-Mart is far more successful appealing lawsuits in Texas than anywhere else in the country. From 1998 to 2005, Wal-Mart has won 100% of the appeals brought against them in Texas; outside of Texas, Wal-Mart has only won 56% of their appeals.

That statistic is the most staggering of a long trend facing the Texas Supreme Court: they have a controversial history of supporting big business in their rulings. From 2005-2006, eighty-two percent of all rulings went in favor of defendants. The rulings themselves wouldn’t be as much of an issue, if it weren’t for the contributions that came along with them.

From 2000-2008, the more money donated to Texas’ Supreme Court justices, the higher the chance of success. A study conducted by the non-partisan consumer advocacy group, Texas Watch, showed that the success rate among donors who gave to the justices on the Supreme Court increased based on how much the donors gave. Here’s a breakdown of their findings:

• 345 donors who had cases before the court gave less than $10,000. They had a success rate – a favorable court ruling – of 54%.

• 44 donors who had cases before the court gave between $10,000 and $24,999. Those 44 donors had a 58% success rate on their cases.

• 48 donors who had cases before the court gave more than $25,000. Those 48 donors had a whopping 64% success rate on their cases.

Justice should not be for sale, regardless of price or party. It is offensive to think that giving more money to the Texas Supreme Court justices will correlate with a higher success rate in the Court – but the findings detailed above demonstrate it to be true.

All nine justices on the Texas Supreme Court are Republican. Blake Bailey is running against recent Rick Perry-appointee Justice Eva Guzman. Now that Guzman has officially won the Republican Party’s primary race to return to the Court, it will be interesting to see how she rules on cases in the coming months – and to what extent her own donors influence her decisions.

As for Blake Bailey, he summed up his stance on the issue quite plainly in his op-ed: “The role of a judge is to dispense justice fairly and impartially, not to favor one group over another.”