A dangerous distortion.

Unique events demand unique responses. That is why individualized justice has always been the hallmark of our democracy. That is also why Congress met one of the most unforgettable days in our national life with the unprecedented September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

And that is why ATLA and state trial lawyer associations developed a unique way to help the families so horribly affected by the terrorist attacks. Through Trial Lawyers Care, the largest pro bono legal services program in history, we promised free lawyers to all victims making claims under the fund. This program will assure them justice.

Amazingly, some seek to leverage the attack on our democratic institutions to undercut their very foundation by eliminating or restricting individualized justice. Consider this commentary:

"The congressional response to September 11 could be a step toward an enlightened liberal-conservative coalition to help injured people too, by providing prompt, efficient compensation and by attacking legal waste," wrote Stuart Taylor Jr. in a column published in January in Legal Times and National Journal.

This view is far from enlightened; in fact, it displays a profound misunderstanding of the rationale for the fund.

What happened on September 11 was a mass murder--not a mass tort. The fund--an outward sign of this nation's immense grief and compassion, and an example of government at its finest--is an emergency government relief program for crime victims. The overarching events of that day bear no resemblance to a tort, just as the fund bears no resemblance to a tort system or remedy. To compare the two is intellectually dishonest.

The principal actors in the tragedy of September 11--the terrorists--could not have been deterred by any part of our legal system, and certainly not by the civil justice system. But in our civilized society, in the area of public safety, the tort system is a true deterrent. Even Taylor concedes as much: "[T]he threat of liability for real negligence is reasonably effective at motivating companies and individuals to make safety a priority," he wrote.

Indeed, as trial lawyers know only too well, civil litigation is the only meaningful and effective deterrent protecting the public. Our government has been unable to apply any strong regulatory oversight or sanctions to manufacturers of shoddy products, reckless hospitals, or other civil wrongdoers. Private industry simply has too massive an arsenal of resources devoted to stifling these efforts. (Anyone who believes that government can protect the public from corporate excesses should talk to the thousands of Enron employees who just lost their life savings.)

To the great frustration of those of us who represent injured people, the government often is unable to change dangerous conduct. But the tort system can and does. We can be proud of the many benefits we have helped bring about through consumer litigation:

* Firestone has removed dangerous tires from our cars and our roads.

* Asbestos companies have stopped choking American workers to death.

* The tobacco industry has scaled back its campaigns to addict our children.

* Car makers have equipped vehicles with seat belts, safety glass, and air bags.

* Manufacturers of children's clothing produce flame-retardant sleelfwear that protects kids in fires.

There are many other examples. After the civil justice system won these safety changes, the government codified some of them in regulations that otherwise could never have been achieved.

The surest way to kill public safety in this country is to adopt a notion of scheduled, severely limited damages in cases of death and injury caused by negligent and reckless companies and individuals. Under that system, the Firestones of the world can calculate and fold into their overhead the limited and predictable cost of killing some of their customers. They can stay in business forever with no incentive to change their defective products or their wrongful conduct.

Under what responsible economic model do we design a system to ensure the survival of corporate wrongdoers, fail to correct their misconduct, and require the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the carnage?

How bitterly ironic--and tragic--it would be if corporate America defiled the memory of September 11 by trying to hijack the compensation fund concept and twist it into a tort model, all in an effort to harm the public and defeat public safety. This would truly be turning the milk of human kindness into something sour and toxic. We shouldn't let it happen.