California Trial Lawyers Build Political Fund to Block Corporate Tort Reform
California plaintiffs’ attorneys are retaining a political war chest to deter future tort reform ballot initiatives, following a legislative deal that averted an expensive fight with Uber Technologies Inc., the Daily Journal reported on Oct. 18, 2026. The Consumer Attorneys of California and its allied political committees entered the year preparing for a November ballot battle, raising roughly $80 million before spending at least $48 million to reach a late legislative compromise.
Standing Up to Tech Corporations and Ballot Fights
The influx of technology industry money into recent ballot campaigns has altered the financial strategy of the state’s trial bar. Roger A. Dreyer, who has led the CAOC’s PAC board for the past four years, said corporations are not seeking to create consumer rights but rather to shut down legal accountability. Dreyer, a partner at Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP in Sacramento, noted that maintaining a standing fund ensures the organization starts with available capital if another entity targets the civil justice system. CAOC President Doug Saeltzer added that starting from zero against future corporate attacks would be irresponsible.
Naming and Shaming Divisions Within the Plaintiffs Bar
Campaign finance records have exposed internal divisions over which lawyers contributed to the political fund and which did not. These tensions surfaced at the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles convention in Las Vegas, where Nick Rowley withdrew from a scheduled panel. Rowley objected to giving speaking and exhibitor slots to attorneys who failed to contribute to the CAOC ballot campaign or who face ethical complaints. Rowley used social media to target Bakersfield attorney Daniel Rodriguez, noting a $25,000 contribution, and Long Beach personal injury attorney Joseph Low, stating he gave nothing. Campaign finance records confirm the contribution figures cited by Rowley. Neither Rodriguez nor Low responded to emails seeking comment.
Drafting Legislation for Unethical Conduct Oversight
Alongside fundraising, prominent trial lawyers are pursuing legislation aimed at unethical conduct within their own profession. Brian J. Panish, senior partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP in Los Angeles, stated that if the State Bar fails to enforce rules, lawyers should have a private right of action to bring improper conduct to court. Rowley reported working with Panish and others on a “skeleton version” of possible legislation that could extend statutes of limitations or open new windows for clients to sue attorneys accused of steering them toward unnecessary medical procedures or utilizing prohibited referral arrangements.
Frequently Asked Questions About the California Tort Reform Battle
How much money remains in the Consumer Attorneys of California political fund?
The committee has less than $30 million remaining following an expenditure of at least $48 million during this year’s legislative and ballot fights, according to California campaign finance records cited by the Daily Journal.
Which firms and attorneys contributed over $1 million to the campaign?
Campaign finance filings show contributions exceeding $1 million from Nick Rowley and Brian J. Panish’s firm, with contributions of several hundred thousand dollars originating from Roger A. Dreyer’s firm and its attorneys.
What specific legislative changes are trial lawyers discussing for attorney oversight?
Attorneys involved in the discussions are considering extending the statute of limitations or opening a new window for clients to sue lawyers accused of steering them toward unnecessary medical procedures or using prohibited referral arrangements.
Keep reading