There has been an ongoing debate in the U.S. concerning the need for tort reform, with the argument being that massive tort litigation has gotten out of hand and has had a crippling effect upon American business and its ability to compete. Part of this ongoing debate as far as it concerns big business has also been the extent of government regulation of business. Business leaders have claimed that governmentover regulationhas minimized their effectiveness to the point where they have to lay off workers due to the strictures on government regulation which costs money to their businesses.

Please share your thoughts on these topics -- should there be tort reform or should the present system remain in place which provides one-third contingency fees to successful counsel in lawsuits? What about open access to the civil system which contingency fee arrangements in personal injury cases provide to plaintiffs who might not otherwise have access to an attorney and the courts? Is government regulation of business a good thing or has the U.S. government's regulations harmed business productivity, profitability and benefit to the U.S. economy? Should the U.S. resort to the English Rule system of loser pays all litigation costs as opposed to the U.S. system where each party isresponsiblefor his/her legal costs?