Plaintiffs, defense bar battle over raising jury trial threshold

Listen to this article

ANNAPOLIS – Attorneys for plaintiffs and civil defendants battled before a Senate committee Thursday over a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the amount in controversy that entitles litigants to a jury trial. The measure would raise the threshold from more than $15,000 to more than $30,000.

Members of the plaintiffs’ bar — many of whom are paid only if their clients win — praised the proposal, saying it would reduce the time, expense and unpredictability of impaneling a jury and awaiting its verdict in the many cases that involve litigation of between $15,000 and $30,000. The defense bar opposed an increase, saying it would limit clients’ right to a jury trial.

If ratified, the jury-threshold increase would be Maryland’s first since 2010, when Marylanders approved a boost from more than $10,000 to more than $15,000.

Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher, D-Montgomery and the chief sponsor of the proposal, said the increase was necessary to keep up with inflation — particularly in medical malpractice litigation – that has resulted in an overwhelming number of relatively small claims going to trial that could be more efficiently and just as fairly resolved by a judge.

The Maryland Association for Justice, an organization of plaintiffs’ lawyers, agreed.

“It’s easier, it’s quicker, it’s less expensive” to have $30,000-and-under claims decided by a judge instead of a jury, attorney James K. MacAlister told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

Judges are well-versed in the personal injury cases that fall below the $30,000 threshold and can save litigants the time and expense of presenting a bevy of expert witnesses to a jury that lacks a depth of experience, said MacAlister, of Cohen, Snyder, Eisenberg & Katzenberg P.A. in Baltimore.

But Sen. Robert Cassilly, R-Harford, said small-claims litigants might prefer to have juries decide their cases.

A litigant could be thinking, “I want to roll the dice with my fellow citizens and not with a judge who might hate me,” Cassilly said.

MacAlister responded that bench trials are more likely to result in efficient and fair settlements, as a judge speaking directly with attorneys lends a greater sense of predictability regarding the verdict than a jury sitting in silence.

“There’s no jackpot justice” with a judge, he said: “The predictability gets things settled.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce M. Plaxen told the committee that a bench trial on a claim under $30,000 can be finished in hours, while a jury trial can take days. In addition, fewer people will have to take time off from work for jury duty if the threshold is raised, said Plaxen, of Plaxen & Adler P.A. in Columbia.

But Noel Patterson, an attorney for Allstate, the insurance company, objected to the proposal, saying it further restricted a civil defendant’s right to a jury trial.

“We are being asked to put away a fundamental right,” Patterson told the committee.

Barritt Peterson, who represents State Farm, said it would be “fundamentally unfair” to raise the threshold because the plaintiffs set the amount in controversy and thereby effectively decide whether the defendant has a right to a jury trial.

To be ratified, the proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Bill 775, must be passed by three-fifths of the Senate and the House of Delegates and then approved by a majority of Maryland voters in 2020.