Turning the tables.

During his recent campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in Iowa's First Congressional District, AAJ member Bruce Braley frequently found himself vilified as a "trial lawyer's trial lawyer" by the National Republican Congressional Committee and the corporate special-interest groups that spent heavily on advertising against him.

Today, however, they have to refer to Braley, the former president of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association, by a completely different title: congressman.

Proponents of civil justice restrictions in Iowa and across the nation thought they had a magic formula to help them defeat Braley and other supporters of the civil justice system last November: Just shout "trial lawyer" from the rooftops, blame attorneys for everything from high medical costs to economic angst, and watch the votes come rolling in.

But they were in for a surprise. The voters of eastern Iowa elected Braley over Republican Jack Whalen by a 12-point margin, making him the first Democrat to hold the seat in 30 years.

I mentioned Braley's victory briefly in my first column after the midterm elections. At that time, it seemed his success--and that of 13 other trial lawyer candidates--indicated that voters weren't buying the anti-trial-lawyer rhetoric. Since then, research has shown that we were right.

Postelection polling

AAJ asked pollster Geoff Garin of Hart Research to conduct a post-election poll to explore the impact that these attacks had on the electorate and to determine how voters responded to Braley's background as a trial lawyer. The findings were telling.

The poll showed that 84 percent of voters in Iowa's First Congressional District knew about Braley's work as a trial lawyer--a high level of recognition. Of those who said they knew the most about his profession, Braley received the support of 56 percent to Whalen's 42 percent. These respondents "were more likely than other voters to say they felt strongly that he was the best choice in the race," Garin reported.

The reason these voters were so thoroughly schooled in Braley's background undoubtedly was that Whalen spent significant resources and countless hours telling them about it. On broadcast television alone, Whalen and his supporters spent close to $700,000 on ads with titles like "Greedy Trial Lawyer" and "Can Sue, Can Do" to attack Braley's status as a trial lawyer.

Whalen and his supporters were hoping that voters in Dubuque, Clinton, and Waterloo would deem Braley's profession so disturbing that they wouldn't support him. But Whalen and others miscalculated voters' support for justice.

The poll showed that the majority of voters supported Braley over his opponent on issues that usually form the basis for attacks against trial attorneys and pro-justice candidates, such as the false allegation that soaring health care costs are attributable to "frivolous" lawsuits. Most voters found the attacks on Braley unfair.

Perhaps the key reason the attacks fell flat is that defenders of the civil justice system have assumed the high road in the debate, offering a clear and compelling message. This was most apparent when voters were offered descriptions of two opposing approaches that candidates take on the issue of civil justice and legal reform. Voters preferred the candidate who emphasizes protecting the legal rights of average Americans over the candidate who stresses the need for tort "reform" by 54 percent to 31 percent.

There's an important lesson to be taken from Braley's victory and the 2006 elections as a whole. While opponents of trial attorneys and the civil justice system spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get their way, the results showed there is far less power in their attacks than is often suspected.

In the 2006 elections, in the country's top 100 media markets, proponents of civil justice restrictions--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association, and others--spent almost $11 million to attack trial lawyers running for office and other candidates who support justice. But proponents of justice overwhelmingly prevailed on Election Day.

While there were other issues at the top of voters' minds in 2006, 14 of the 18 trial lawyers who ran won, while 248 of the 306 pro-justice candidates supported by AAJ prevailed. The other side tried to convince candidates that they would lose if they supported the right of every person to hold a wrongdoer accountable. But our efforts and the success of pro-civil-justice candidates helped debunk that myth.

Bruce Braley and all pro-justice officeholders deserve our congratulations and our thanks. They are now on the front lines fighting for justice, and we are confident the fight is in good hands.