- A new report published by conservative think tanks in Texas and Florida credits years of tort reform in those states for contributing to their “economic dominance”
- The report makes policy recommendations, such as curtailing “unreasonable damage awards” and addressing the risks of third-party litigation financing, that the authors argue would foster economic growth and predictability in the court system
- Increased political activity by personal injury trial lawyers, particularly in trying to influence Republican Primaries, is cited in the report as a threat to the continued “competitive edge” of Texas and Florida
A newly-released report by conservative think tanks in Texas and Florida points to tort reform as a leading driver of economic success in those two states – but warns that recent efforts by personal injury trial lawyers could jeopardize their “economic dominance.”
Published by the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute (TCCRI) and the Florida-based James Madison Institute, “The Litigation Lobby: Civil Justice Reform and the Future of the Texas-Florida Economic Advantage” examines tort reform legislation passed in Texas and Florida that the report credits with contributing to their economic success compared to other states.
The report also makes policy recommendations that would “maintain Texas’ and Florida’s recognition as Boom Belt and national leaders in economic development and expansion and civil justice reform” and discusses efforts by personal injury trial lawyers in the two states that would threaten their “competitive edge”.
“Texas has done an exceptional job creating a business-friendly environment, largely through its multi-decade tort reform efforts. This paper holds those reforms up as an example that we hope other states will follow,” said Tom Aldred, Executive Director of the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute.
The report offers three policy recommendations for lawmakers to consider.
The first recommendation, “Reconsider previously introduced legislation designed to prevent unreasonable damage awards and rising public costs,” cites Senate Bill 30 from the 2025 Texas legislative session. That legislation, which passed the Texas Senate with unanimous Republican support but failed to become law after the bill’s supporters claimed that it was gutted in the Texas House, sought to address excessive jury awards described as “nuclear verdicts.”
Supporters of Senate Bill 30 argued that the legislation was necessary to prevent abusive litigation practices that drive up costs for Texas businesses and consumers.
“I am here to testify in favor of SB 30 because what I see day in and day out is nothing short of fraud. I know that’s a very strong word, and I don’t use it lightly. But from someone who practiced for a very large plaintiff’s firm here in the State of Texas, I know exactly how this works,” said attorney Melissa Casey in her testimony to Texas lawmakers last year.
The second recommendation made in the report is to “Reconsider previously introduced legislation that addresses the risks of third-party litigation funding agreements.” This recommendation cites legislation proposed in the Texas legislature that would have required litigants in Texas lawsuits to disclose the existence of any third parties financing the litigation, as well as a bill proposed in Congress that would ban foreign governments or sovereign wealth funds from financing litigation in the United States.
George Soros, who teamed up with personal injury trial lawyers to fund a campaign urging voters to “Stop MAGA Republicans” and “Vote for Every Democrat” during the 2024 election, has found third-party litigation financing to be a very lucrative endeavor. In a 2018 article, Bloomberg News reported that Soros’ company, Soros Wealth Management, was generating 20% returns by bankrolling personal injury lawsuits.
The report also recommends that lawmakers reconsider legislation, as was proposed in the House version of House Bill 5138 by State Representative Matt Shaheen in the 2025 Texas legislative session, that would give the Texas Attorney General jurisdiction to prosecute election crimes if a local prosecutor had failed to act on a law enforcement report of an election crime after six months.
While the report credits years of tort reform in Texas and Florida as contributing to the states’ “economic dominance”, it warns that efforts by personal injury trial lawyers to roll back existing reforms and block future reforms could imperil their continued prosperity.
The report states, “While political engagement by trial lawyers is lawful and constitutionally protected, the scale, coordination, and tactical targeting of these efforts raise serious public policy questions. They challenge whether the Texas and Florida civil justice systems are being shaped primarily by broad public interests or by narrow, litigation-driven priorities.”
In Texas, the report cites efforts by law firms such as Arnold & Itkin, which contributed $10 million to start the “Texans for Truth and Liberty PAC”, which spent heavily to influence Republican Primary elections.
The Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which has partnered with the Blueprint Texas PAC on efforts to elect Democrats in the November General Election, was a sponsor of the Republican Party of Texas State Convention last month and was also active in Republican Primary elections.
The report urges lawmakers in Texas and Florida not to take their current economic success for granted and urges them to continue taking steps to reinforce their standing as national leaders in fostering a pro-business environment.
“Florida and Texas have emerged over the past decade as two of the most economically dynamic states in the country, attracting capital, corporate headquarters, and high-income residents at a rate unmatched in state history. That trajectory is not automatic, nor permanent. It depends, in part, on the continued perception among business decision-makers that the legal environment is predictable and insulated from the kind of plaintiff-friendly manipulation that defines jurisdictions losing ground in the competition for capital,” the report states.
“Erosion of the reforms enacted would not be a neutral policy reversion; it would send a clear signal to the same audience that propelled the growth that the calculus has changed. Conversely, further reforms that address remaining exposure points, including third-party litigation funding transparency, bad-faith standards in commercial insurance disputes, and medical damages valuation, would reinforce the states’ positions as preferred locations for businesses and capital seeking a stable legal climate. The Boom Belt is a competitive position, not a geographic birthright, and a state’s standing within it depends as much on what happens in the Capitol as on what happens in the courthouse.”
