TX-SEN: Watts Getting Hammered For Letter Touting Judicial Contributions To Courtroom Opponent

U.S. Senate candidate Mikal Watts (D-San Antonio) is taking some serious hits in the press today for a letter he once wrote claiming he would have an advantage before a Texas appeals court because of his firm’s sizable contributions to its justices.

The Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News have the story:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mikal Watts of San Antonio once tried to pressure a legal opponent into a $60 million personal injury lawsuit settlement by claiming he would have an advantage on appeal because of his firm’s “heavy” campaign financial support to an appellate court’s justices, “all of whom are good Democrats.”

Talk about something tailor-made for a negative mailer.

In the instance discussed above, Watts was trying to pressure attorneys for AEP, an energy company, into settling a tort over a motor vehicle accident in a nine-page letter.
Naturally, the folks at Texans for Public Justice have a bad taste in their mouth as a result:

“This letter seems to confirm what everybody thinks about Texas justice. Very seldom is it this well-articulated,” said Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice, an organization that advocates for campaign finance reform. “It confirms the fact Texas courts are filled with politics.”

While it is true that lawyers do go back-and-forth about the nature of presiding judges and appellate judges when talking about settlements, Watts took it one step further in his letter:

What made the letter unusual was the linking of campaign contributions to sitting justices and the potential of an appeal.

The letter noted that if the case went to appeal, it would go to the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi.

“This court is comprised of six justices, all of whom are good Democrats,” Watts wrote. “The Chief Justice, Hon. Rogelio Valdez, was recently elected with our firm’s heavy support, and is a man who believes in the sanctity of jury verdicts.”

The letter goes on to name Justices Errlinda Castillo, Nelda Rodriguez, Federico Hinojosa and Linda Yanez and says Watts’ firm has supported them as well.

“Justice Bonner Dorsey is more conservative than the others, but has been a friend of mine and the sanctity of jury verdicts for many years,” Watts wrote.

To say the least, Watts was being quite presumptuous. To say the worst, it makes Watts seem as though he felt his contributions put the judges in his pocket.

Here’s the defense he offered:

Watts said Tuesday he noted his contributions in the letter because defense lawyers always tell trial lawyers they cannot win their cases ultimately because the Texas Supreme Court consists of all Republican justices.

“It was in response to the garbage we hear from defense lawyers every day,” Watts said.

Opposing counsel, he noted, typically will say, “It doesn’t matter what a jury is going to do because we’ve got nine angry Republicans on the Texas Supreme Court who will take away whatever a jury does.”

Watts said he was only trying to point out that if he won at the appeals court level, it would be unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept the case on further appeal.

In the election cycles surrounding the 2001 letter, Watts and his law firm donated a total of $82,500 to five of the six justices sitting on the 13th Court of Appeals.

Eighty-two thousand five hundred bucks doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but remember that Appeals Court races aren’t usually as high-dollar as state representative and other races.

Admittedly, Watts’ defense isn’t totally illegitimate, although I disagree that the SCOTX rarely up cases on appeal when the plaintiff prevails at the intermediate appellate level. However, the letter is a pretty tough smoking gun for a candidate who, should he win the party’s nomination, will be relentlessly attacked by the GOP because he is a trial lawyer. Having that added piece of baggage won’t help.