As some of you may know, before I was elected mayor, I ran an information technology business. You know, that's the industry who made it so that when you want to turn off your computer, you click the "on" icon.
That makes me the perfect person to address people who write 20,000 word documents, then call them "briefs."
Seriously, I thought it was important to be here today for two reasons.
First, I want to thank you for holding your convention in this city, one that has endured so much and that has progressed so far in its rebuilding from the attacks of 9/11.
Thirteen months after the attack on the World Trade Center, New York is coming back strong. If you have a chance while you are here, I encourage you to visit Ground Zero, both to see first-hand the terrible damage that was done, but even more importantly, to view the rebuilding progress that has been made throughout Lower Manhattan.
That rebuilding is the result of an unprecedented partnership involving all levels of government, organized labor and the private sector-including the legal community.
Let me give you one dramatic example of how New York's legal community has contributed to our city's renewal.
It centers around the New York City Corporation Counsel's office, a City agency that has more lawyers than all but one private law firm that is based in New York City. It occupies five floors in a very large building located directly across the street from ground zero.
On September 11, 2001, the more than 600 lawyers working in that office narrowly escaped death as the twin towers literally fell on and around their building, which sustained heavy damage.
During the seven months while their offices were being rebuilt, those lawyers were temporarily housed in 40 different other locations throughout the city, much of it in space generously made available by a number of New York City law firms.
And 35 local law firms are continuing their extraordinary help, by agreeing to represent us in cases against the City at no charge.
By providing that help to the Corporation Counsel- and by giving families affected by 9/11 thousands of hours of pro bono legal help-our city's legal profession stepped up to the plate when New Yorkers needed them most.
That's the good news. Next the tough part. Now it's time for the leaders of the legal profession to step up to the plate again-to help the City avert a crisis that, unchecked, will severely undermine our continued ability to recover.
This threat is one that you, as leaders of the legal profession have an ability and a duty to help us address. Particularly you here today, who represent the top one per cent of trial lawyers in each state of the U.S. and each Canadian province.
The threat centers around where the theories of law and classic politics meet the new reality of today's marketplace. In the long run, New York's economic outlook is bright. But in the short run-which, for better or worse, happens to coincide with my first term as mayor-we face serious fiscal challenges.
Bottom line: the City's projected budget deficit next year is approximately five to six billion dollars. Unlike the State and Federal governments, we can't run a deficit or borrow to cover our shortfalls.
And our ability to close that deficit without making serious cuts in basic city services is hampered by a growing but largely hidden drain on the City's budget: exorbitant tort judgments.
During Fiscal Year 2001, New York City paid out approximately $560 million in tort judgments and settlements-or viewed in the context of the city's overall five billion-plus deficit, a full ten per cent of our problem.
That amount - listen to this carefully - has increased during the last two decades by 2,300 per cent.
The importance of decreasing what amounts to a half-billion dollar "tort tax" on New York City residents cannot be overstated.
If, for example, we could cut that $560 million in half, we could pay the salaries of 5,000 more teachers or firefighters.
It seems as if every morning at our senior staff meeting, Michael Cardozo, our Corporation Counsel, reports on another jury verdict against the City that is neither something the city can afford-- nor fair to its citizens.
Let me give you just a few examples out of the literally thousands of incomprehensible judgments that we have to pay each year.
A car, driven by a man under the influence of cocaine, heroin and methadone sped through an intersection, jumped the curb and plowed into three people on the sidewalk, two of whom were seriously injured.
The driver pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree and served two years in jail. Even so, because a civil jury found the driver had swerved around a sanitation truck, the City had to pay the entire amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs: nearly $18 million.
Although an appellate court later substantially reduced the verdict, it sustained the city's liability-meaning we had to pick up the bill for the full amount: more than $5 million.
Then there was the case of a taxi that was going through the transverse in Central Park when the driver lost control and smashed into a car coming in the other direction.
The jury found the cab driver 95 per cent responsible and the city, which had apparently not fixed a bump in the road, five per cent responsible.
The result? Under the "deep pockets" concept, the city was required to pay 100 per cent of all economic damages the jury awarded the plaintiff.
And there was the case of two teenage boys who sustained serious injuries when they dove into three-foot deep ocean water after scaling a fence specifically designed to keep people away from the water's edge.
A jury found the city liable, and an appellate court awarded one of the boys $19 million in pain and suffering damages.
I could give you more examples, but you get the idea.
When our appellate courts uphold increasingly common jury awards in negligence cases of more than $50 million, we need to make changes.
When the courts award millions of dollars to people who literally jump in front of moving trains to commit suicide, and survive-I'm not making this up, this has happened in New York City. The guy tries to kill himself-- and lives-and a jury says the City did something wrong and held us liable for injuries. Idiotic! Unaffordable! And in today's world, unsustainable.
When a plaintiff can recover 100 per cent of damages from a City government that is only minimally at fault - we need reform and we need it now.
The prescription for reform is well known to all of you: it includes caps on pain and suffering, abolition of joint and several liability, and other sensible measures.
If the City does something wrong it should pay. But it shouldn't bear more than its real fault. It shouldn't be at the whim of a jury to make absurdly inflated awards to plaintiffs.
When juries saddle City government with such judgments they are hurting themselves, and all of us. They are denying themselves and all of us police and fire protection.
They are closing senior citizen centers and shutting down soup kitchens. They are making it impossible to pay teachers and firefighters and police officers and nurses and tens of thousands of other valuable public servants what they are worth.
You know, many people have asked me what the difference is between working in the private sector and being in government. I tell them that in business, it's dog-eat-dog. But in government, it's just the other way around. Which is to say there's less difference than you might think. And that's going to be more true in the future.
Pick up the financial section of any newspaper, and you will read about corporations experiencing layoffs, retrenchment, and other forms of painful restructuring. In these times, business as usual just doesn't wash anymore.
The same is true in government. The economic downturn is causing cities and states to shed "business as usual" policies and practices that we can't afford any longer.
Governments are ending programs and starting to downsize workforces-just like companies across America, and around the world.
Many people have described September 11th as a wake-up call. I agree. We are still experiencing after-shocks from the terrorist attacks that day.
Our response, as a society and as individuals, ought to be to look in the mirror-to ask ourselves what we can do, affirmatively, to help our nation recover and move forward-and also what we need to change.
After 9/11, the legal profession responded superbly on the first count, generously helping our city and its people.
On the second count-on ending business as usual-specifically on checking the flow of millions in tort judgment dollars away from City services-- to coin a phrase, the jury is still out. It's up to you to help lead the way toward the right verdict.
I know cynics say that tort reform is politically impossible, but perhaps not in this new age.
Make no mistake, excessive tort judgments will cause us to lose the services that the public demands-those who protect us-those who educate our kids---food and shelter for the needy-those who keep our streets clean and take care of our most needy.
It's part of my job to make the cause and effect of outrageous tort judgments obvious to the voters and the unions.
When they do, perhaps we will see a day soon when the advocacy pickets looking for funding gather outside the homes of our lawyers and judges instead of our elected officials. It's up to you to help decide if that is going to come to pass. Thank you very much, and best wishes to you all.