Over breakfast on November 9 James Rollins told a group of reporters that Christy Whitman's victory in New Jersey was in part due to paying money to black clergymen and democratic workers for their suppression of the black vote. Intensive TV and press coverage over the next few weeks reported that politicians, media pundits and Rollins' colleagues were amazed, not at the paid effort to suppress the black vote, but that it should have been made public by the man responsible for it. The implication is that efforts at suppressing the vote is considered a permissible political tactic so long as no one publicly admits to it. The evil is seen in talking about it publicly.

In George Orwell's novel, 1984, one of the chief devices used by a totalitarian society to corrupt social values was corruption of the language. Peace became a state of continuous warfare. "Truth-speak" became lies. Can it be that in 1993 the corruption of values is so complete that the evil is perceived not in the corrupted value but in publicly talking about it? Probably not. But the experience is soul chilling.

There is another similarly chilling 1993 phenomenon. It is the realization that a quiet and highly effective campaign has been going on for the past twenty years to elevate corporate profits and private wealth over social justice and individual rights as cornerstones of our civil justice system by using the same Orwellian tactic: corruption of the value system by corruption of the language. We now have business financed "public interest" law firms; "civil justice reform" predicated on intricately structured misinformation and occasional outright lies; privately funded judicial "education" programs; and a concomitant public relations juggernaut complaining about non-existent "insurance crises" and "litigation explosions," while really predominately concerned with the protection and promotion of private and commercial wealth.

It is only in 1993 that the massive scope of this effort to reshape the American legal system has been disclosed for what it is. Peter Huber, the darling of the tort reformers, has been exposed as a second rate scholar and seriously flawed spokesman. A report by the Alliance for Justice, "Justice for Sale: Shortchanging the Public Interest for Private Gain," tells the story and documents this campaign of corruption of fundamental civil justice values. The report can be obtained for $15 by writing Alliance for Justice, 1601 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20009, or calling the Alliance at (202) 332-3224.

It is not that the major corporations and insurance companies in this country, and their supportive foundations, have no right to aggressively put forth their point of view. No one denies these foundations and business interests their entitlement to fund and promote their political and ideological agendas. Nor is it disputed that our civil justice system is far from perfect, and that barriers to judicial access, delays, and other inefficiencies in the tort system often diminish the remedies available to tort victims, or deter them from seeking relief altogether. Some issues espoused by business interests and their foundations are appealing to broad spectrum of American society, such as welfare reform.

The evil is in the corruption of values by deliberate misuse of language. Through their reliance on such terminology as "civil justice reform," "efficiency," and "free enterprise," business and their allied philanthropic leaders have attempted to frame issues in a manner that equates approval of an ideal, such as the "free market" or "civil justice reform," with their own substantive agendas. To them, civil justice reform does not mean, as the phrase suggests, making the legal system more efficient, accessible and fair. At its core, these "reformers" mean by "civil justice reform" the protection and enhancement of corporate profits and private wealth as the primary cornerstones of our legal system, with fairness, accessibility and efficiency subordinate.

The misuse of the phrase "civil justice reform" has resulted in a groundswell of public support for unproven "solutions" for problems that are far more complex than the simplistic "panaceas," slogans and messages employed by the "reformers." By spending unparalleled resources on advertising and other public relations endeavors, the business partisans have deluged the public with unsubstantiated, frequently completely erroneous, claims about "litigation crises" and "insurance crises" that allegedly threatens or has threatened American competitiveness and economic prosperity. Through such distorted messages they have generated public sympathy for "reform" when none is needed, and have exploited that sympathy in an attempt to convince judges, legislators, and legal scholars of the need for drastic liability limiting measures. For the most part, their efforts do not encompass any kind of balanced debate, and the "reforms" they seek, while presumably protecting their profits, are generally unproven measures for making the legal system more "efficient" or "equitable."

The corruption is also found in masking the corporate business-funded interests' agendas by promoting them in the guise of "the public interest." Consider the business-funded "public interest" law firms. These litigation centers are funded nearly entirely by corporations and insurance companies that are among the most well-represented litigants in our society. The public interest law firms almost always promote the general or specific interests of their business sponsors, but they do so under the guise of "public interest," tax-exempt status under the IRS code. Traditional public interest organizations represent indigents and other disadvantaged groups or causes who are otherwise denied a voice in our civil justice system. The business oriented "public interest" law firms routinely advance positions that benefit their corporate contributors, which are already well represented and powerful players in the legal system. The "public interest" law firms give their corporate sponsors two bites of the apple in the litigation process, the second one purchased with a tax deductible contribution.

This is not all. Conservative foundations, concerned with building an intellectual base for their cause, have poured money into law schools for academic research that supports their claims and objectives. The Olin Foundation, for example, has donated millions of dollars to some of the nation's most elite law schools for the study of law and economics, a legal theory that champions an unfettered economic marketplace and scorns virtually all governmental regulation of corporate affairs. The money has been used to fund facility positions, create law and economic courses, support student and faculty research projects, conduct workshops and seminars, and provide scholarships to students to study law and economics.

Major corporations and business-friendly foundations have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in privately-run judicial seminars at which judges learn -- free-of-charge -- about areas of the law that are of primary concern to business. The insurance and manufacturing industries, led by the Aetna, have sent millions of dollars advertising their claims, lobbying state and federal legislators to enact substantial tort "reform" measures, and bankrolling legal scholarship and judicial seminars designed to "educate" the legal and judicial communities about the need for curtailing access to the courts.

The "Justice for Sale" report demonstrates that the attack by the monied interests in America to secure a reordering of American jurisprudence is at its core a campaign not about making the law more efficient or more fair, but by creating a trickle-down system of justice that exalts corporate and private wealth. The report demonstrates the devious manner in which the monied interests covertly mask their true agenda, and documents the ongoing efforts of a small wealthy group to mold a new jurisprudence. It is both a warning and a call to action for those who are committed to ensuring that our judicial system does not become just another commodity for sale to the highest bidder. It is required reading for every judge, workers' compensation commissioner, and trial lawyer.