New research report fingers trial lawyers’ PAC money going to Democrats for Illinois lawsuit abuse – Wirepoints

By: Mark Glennon

Illinois has long been consistently ranked among the worst states for lawsuit abuse. Simply stated, that makes it a place where “trial lawyers, not taxpayers or businesses, call the shots.” That’s how the Illinois branch of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA IL) put in in their new report, Predatory Lawsuit Report: Follow the Money.

CALA IL’s report places the blame specifically: Cash from trial lawyers going to Democratic Illinois lawmakers.

The center of the system is the Illinois Lawyers Association PAC (ITLA PAC), “a political machine that funds lawmakers who protect lawsuit-friendly policies at all costs,” CALA’s report says. And ITLA PAC exclusively bankrolls Democratic candidates and leadership PACs, CALA found. From their report:

Between Election Day 2022 and the conclusion of the 103^rd General Assembly in January 2025, the ITLA PAC funneled over $1 million exclusively into Democratic political campaigns and organizations. Not a single dollar went to Republican candidates or committees, making it clear that ITLA PAC’s financial influence is a partisan operation designed to buy loyalty from the party in power.

The report delivers the receipts, listing in detail which lawmakers got the money. Here are just some of the bigger names:

It’s no wonder you may have noticed a common denominator in so much of new legislation that comes out of Springfield — creation of more bases for more lawsuits with more liability on more matters, usually against businesses.

I spoke to Phil Melin, CALA IL’s executive director. He sent just a few of the recent laws and pending bills, listed below, that CALA IL has criticized.

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.

•  Senate Bill 72 (SB 72) & House Bill 3360 (HB 3360) – Prejudgment Interest Laws

Gov. Pritzker signed SB 72, imposing a 6% annual prejudgment interest on personal injury and wrongful death cases, retroactive for up to five years before a judgment. Initially, HB 3360 proposed a 9% interest rate starting from the date of injury notification rather than from when a case was filed. Although HB 3360 passed in a lame-duck session, it faced opposition and was subsequently replaced with SB 72.

These laws favor trial lawyers by increasing potential settlement amounts. IL CALA warns that these measures pressure small businesses and insurers to settle even meritless claims to avoid accumulating interest, leading to higher costs, increased litigation, and escalating insurance premiums.

•  House Bill 2231 (HB 2231) – Common Carrier Classification for Ride-Share Companies

Signed into law on August 11, 2023, HB 2231 classifies ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft as “common carriers, “subjecting them to the same liability standards as other transportation providers such as taxicabs and railways. This change holds these companies to a higher standard of care for their passengers, making them potentially liable for incidents involving their drivers, including accidents and assaults.

IL CALA argues that this legislation increases operational costs for ride-share companies, which may be passed on to consumers and could deter ride-share services from operating in Illinois, thereby reducing transportation options and affecting small businesses that rely on these services.

•  House Bill 0219 (HB 0219) – Allowing Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Cases

In May 2023, the Illinois legislature passed HB 0219, amending the Illinois Wrongful Death Act to permit heirs of decedents to recover punitive damages in most wrongful death actions. Previously, punitive damages were not recoverable in such cases. This change excludes legal or medical malpractice claims and cases against state or local governments. (gtlaw.com)

IL CALA warns that this amendment exposes small businesses to increased litigation risks and higher insurance premiums, as punitive damages can substantially escalate financial liabilities in wrongful death lawsuits.

ITLA’s Influence on the Illinois Supreme Court

ITLA’s financial influence extends beyond legislation—they’ve actively supported efforts to shape the Illinois Supreme Court to ensure favorable rulings. ITLA made the following donations to All for Justice, a committee dedicated to influencing Illinois Supreme Court races:

• $150,000 on 10/24/22
• $52,500 on 10/26/22

This funding contributed to the election of Justice Elizabeth Rochford, who authored the Illinois Supreme Court opinion expanding the scope of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Her ruling in Cothron v. White Castle determined that businesses could be fined for every individual violation of BIPA rather than just the first instance, exposing employers to potentially millions in liability for technical violations with no actual harm.

This exemplifies how ITLA-backed judges deliver rulings that benefit trial lawyers at the expense of job creators. BIPA lawsuits have cost Illinois businesses millions and led to an increase in class-action litigation against employers, many of whom had no intent to violate the law.

In addition, here are two bills pending in the current legislative session. 

• HB1154, Human Rights Relief & Penalties

• Sponsor: Rep. Will Guzzardi (D-39)
• CALA position: Oppose
• Status: Assigned to Judiciary – Civil Committe
• Summary: Amends the Illinois Human Rights Act. Provides that a plaintiff may be awarded all forms of relief available in tort actions, including but not be limited to, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of a normal life. Provides that a plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages.

• SB1671: Liability – Online Sellers

• Sponsor: Sen. Christopher Belt (D-57)
• CALA position: Oppose
• Status: Referred to Assignments
• Summary:Amends the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that in any product liability action based on any theory or doctrine commenced or maintained against a defendant or defendants other than the manufacturer, if the product was manufactured outside the United States and is offered for sale by a seller through an online marketplace, then the seller, the online marketplace, and the high-volume third-party seller are jointly and severally liable with the manufacturer for any harm caused by the product. Defines “seller”, “online marketplace”, and “high-volume third-party seller” to have the same meaning as used in the Illinois Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act. Applies to causes of action accruing on or after the effective date of the Act.