We’ve all heard those commercials on TV and radio inviting people who may have contracted mesothelioma or asbestosis or other occupationally-related diseases to call the number on your screen. "Renowned attorney, Larsen E.. Pettifogger, is an acknowledged expert in the field." Then there is a paragraph of fine print nobody else can read. But I am specially equipped for the task.

What the fine print reveals is that the lawyer advertising for plaintiffs will not be handling the case. He or she will hand it off to some other presumably even more expert lawyer and collect a fee for finding (or you might say creating) the plaintiffs.

There was a time not long ago when it was illegal for lawyers to advertise for clients, to stir up litigation. It was barratry and champerty.

But that all changed a few years ago when the Supreme Court agreed that those restrictions violated the free speech rights of lawyers. So now lawyers can advertise on televisions, in phone books, in newspapers, on the sides of buses, and anyplace else they want.

Previously, lawyers were ethically forbidden to stir up quarrels and litigation. That’s what was known as barratry. Lawyers are still prohibited from agreeing to assume the cost of litigation in exchange for a part of the recovery if successful. That’s why part of the fine print in lawyers’ contingent fee agreements may call for the lawyer to advance the costs of litigation, but the client must agree to repay those costs if the case is unsuccessful. As a practical matter, such costs are often not recovered. This is known as champerty and is a violation.

This "trolling for plaintiffs" procedure generates big bucks for the lawyers who file what in many cases are nuisance suits. Such cases can yield up to $150,000 to the injured plaintiff, with one-quarter to one-half going to the lawyer(s).

This keeps medical malpractice insurance high and consumes a good amount of time on the part of the accused doctor. It is a system that has been widely criticized but only one state has done anything about it. Texas has passed tort reform and it is a wild success.

It is so successful that doctors from all over the nation are moving to Texas and lawyers who make a living filing suits for quick settlements are leaving. Already, 7,000 doctors have moved into Texas. And where are all the lawyers going? California mostly.

Medical liability insurers, of which there are 30 competing for the business, are slashing premiums as much as 35 percent. Some examples of tort reform that are accomplishing this worthy goal in Texas include a cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000. Texas changed the burden of proof for proving injuries from emergency room care from simple negligence willful and wanton neglect, a much heavier burden. Texas also requires an independent medical expert to support the plaintiff.

There are 85,000 asbestos cases active in the state. But instead of each proceeding separately, they are consolidated and discovery and motions are all handled by one judge. Since this system was put into place, only 300 of the cases have been certified as ready for trial, neatly scuttling 84,700 cases, almost certainly specious.

Similar results occurred in cases alleging silicosis. Only 47 of 6,000 cases are proceeding to trial.

These changes in the system are not as extensive as those I have recommended in which the risk of loss is shared by the public, but it has the charm that it was possible to get the legislation through. The lawyers who make their living pressing claims, many of which are bogus, are a potent political force in every state and on a federal level. They are one reason medical malpractice procedures have not been reformed in 49 states.

But what happened in Texas proves it can be done with enough resolve. And such reform yields more than just medical rationality. The Wall Street Journal reports Texas has recently become home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York or California. Such companies must prefer to locate in jurisdictions which are not controlled by lawyers looking to leach off the productive companies in the economy.

Arizona has considered tort reform, but somehow it never gets off the ground. This might be an auspicious time to take another look at it. Or do we really want to have to travel to Texas to see a doctor?

E-mail comments for publication to editor@azbiz.com. Contact Lionel Waxman at territorial@waxmanmedia.com. Waxman’s Flashpoint commentaries are published in The Daily Territorial.