Crux reports:
At the end of another long day trying to sign up new clients accusing the Roman Catholic Church of sexual abuse, lawyer Adam Slater gazes out the window of his high-rise Manhattan office at one of the great symbols of the Church, St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
“I wonder how much that’s worth?” he muses.
Across the country, attorneys like Slater are scrambling to file a new wave of lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by clergy, thanks to rules enacted in 15 states that extend or suspend the statute of limitations to allow claims stretching back decades. Associated Press reporting found the deluge of suits could surpass anything the nation’s clergy sexual abuse crisis has seen before, with potentially more than 5,000 new cases and payouts topping $4 billion.
I have been a consistent advocate of Church reforms intended to prevent sexual abuse by priests and other church officials. See my article Enhanced Accountability: The Catholic Church’s Unfinished Business, 53 University of San Francisco Law Review 165 (2019); available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3421795.
But I am also a strong advocate of statutes of limitation. It's important to remember that the Church has gotten its act together. Ninety-nine percent of newly reported cases occurred before 2000. So we're talking about decades-old cases. And there's a lot of good reasons why we generally don't allow cases to be brought decades after they allegedly occurred. See my memorandum against SB 131, which I wrote the last time California decided to throw the whole concept of fundamental fairness under the bus:
By extending the period within which suits may be brought indefinitely, and thus raising the specter of litigation based on decades-old events, SB 131 is completely antithetical to the proposition that litigation should be based on “reasonably fresh evidence.” ...
SB 131 breaks faith with assurances given by the Legislature 10 years ago when it enacted SB 1779 (Burton), a one-time, one-year lifting of the statute of limitations for all of 2003 that allowed any victim of sexual abuse — regardless of how long ago it occurred — a second chance to file a lawsuit. SB 131 thus would revive claims for an unprecedented third time. ...
SB 131 is further flawed by its fundamental unfairness. SB 131 covers incidents of abuse that may have taken place in private schools, not public schools, so the 92 percent of California children who attend public schools aren’t covered. This discriminates against both public school children and operators of private schools. Why do public schools and teachers get a free ride, while their students get no relief and their private school counterparts face potentially staggering liability?
The financial impact cannot be ignored. As I pointed out in my law review article, The Bishop's Alter Ego: Enterprise Liability and the Catholic Priest Sex Abuse Scandal,(9) unlimited liability exposure for the Catholic Church will "impede, if not destroy, the ability of these ministries to serve the needs of their congregants. Indeed, the mere threat of liability might do so: 'Both church and society will suffer if the continuation of ministries prompted by compassion — ministries often involving risks — is stopped short by the nervous calculation of legal liabilities.'” (10)
As such, SB 131’s elimination of statutes of limitation raises serious concerns about the ability of religious organizations to freely exercise their religion, and thus has very serious implications for the free exercise rights that are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
The usual suspects--the trial lawyers, their front groups masquerading as victim representation advocates, and their anti-Church academic enablers will scream that I am being insensitive. While victims of decades-old cases deserve our sympathy, I am not sure we should bankrupt the Church to enrich trial lawyers bringing cases that are often suspect:
The problem is particularly acute in the area of childhood sex abuse litigation, where so-called “recovered memories” are often at issue. As courts have recognized, the length of time between the alleged event and the recovery of the purported memory is highly relevant to the credibility of that memory, with longer time periods being associated with reduced credibility. In addition, courts have recognized that “the presence or absence of objective, verifiable corroborative evidence of the event” is critical in assessing the credibility of a recovered memory. All too many of the cases authorized by SB 131 [and these new bills] likely will be so old that the defense may be unable to obtain evidence to challenge the credibility of purported recovered memories.
