A judge later overturned the award. But remember Stella Liebeck, who won a $2.9 million verdict against McDonalds from third-degree burns she suffered after spilling a cup of the fast food chain’s piping-hot coffee? Her award was later reduced to $640,000.

The latest headline-grabbing lawsuit: a woman is suing the makers of Pirate’s Booty snack food for their misleading nutritional claims. It seems just about any dispute can be taken to the courtroom these days, and often with lucrative results. But Philip K. Howard argues that society at large is paying the price-literally, as costs are passed down to consumers from companies to compensate for money lost in large-sum lawsuits-but also as the collective fear of being sued has led to a jump in restrictive regulations, nonsensical warning labels, and a growing distrust of our neighbors and our justice system. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Howard, a lawyer, civic leader and author of the 1994 bestseller “The Death of Common Sense” and last year’s “The Collapse of Common Good,” about his most ambitious project yet: as founder and chairman of Common Good (www.ourcommongood.com), a new coalition created to overhaul America’s legal system, whose board members range from Newt Gingrich to George McGovern.

NEWSWEEK: What prompted you to form the Common Good coalition?

Philip K. Howard: What happened after “The Death of Common Sense” came out was that it was widely praised and accepted by leaders of both political parties but then everyone kept asking me what the solution was. And the solution seemed so obvious: judge what people do, don’t tell them exactly how to do it. The great thing about the American character is the can-do attitude and the use of ingenuity and common sense and will power to make things happen. Let people use that. And then, if they don’t do a good job, hold them accountable.

It took me another year and a half or two years to figure out that the reason people were asking what the solution was is that we had lost the idea in America that someone could do something just because they thought it was the sensible thing to do. We had developed a public philosophy that you better be able to prove the correctness of your position or else you might get in trouble.

So the doctors began to think, I better order tests even though I don’t think they’re needed, just in case there’s something wrong, to prove that I did something. Teachers began to be reluctant to send the misbehaving child out of the classroom because they wondered, “How do I prove that he threw the pencil first?” School boards began to get rid of seesaws and swings because they wondered how to prove that the benefit of childhood development from the playground implements outweigh the occasional accident. A fear had infected the culture as people began to look at every decision as a matter of legal proof.

Are there any cases where you think it would make sense to sue for punitive damages?

There is the occasional case where someone acts with such malice that punitive damages are appropriate. But today it seems that every person who is in an accident sues for punitive damages. Everyone who has an honest disagreement sues for punitive damages. The point is that if a judge, or someone else acting on behalf of society, doesn’t make rulings on who can sue for what then all Americans have lost the protection of law. That’s the reason this fear has infected the culture. The number of actual lawsuits is really relatively small but they’re well publicized. But they are the tip of the iceberg, and that iceberg is the fear, and the fear is not irrational because Americans now know that anyone can sue for practically anything. And the odds in a disagreement might be might be one in 500 that someone will sue-but who will protect you then? And if you’re a doctor, the odds are much worse than that.

In fact, in your new book, “The Collapse of the Common Good,” you mention that doctors are squandering billions of dollars ordering unnecessary CAT scans for people with headaches, fearing they might be held liable if the aches become tumors. That CAT-scan money could be used instead to provide health coverage to America’s 40 million uninsured people. How has the medical community responded to that?

We did a forum this week, “Does America Need a New System of Medical Justice?” The auditorium was packed with representatives from virtually everyone interested in healthcare. Everyone seemed to agree that we had to abandon the current system of justice for healthcare and create a new one. The response is overwhelming and enthusiastic.

You’ve suggested that a separate medical court should be created. Why? And how would it function?

I would have it be part of the regular court system so there could be appeals but the trial court would be manned by people with technical training and the authority to make rulings of what a proper standard of care is-not juries. I don’t believe that juries are appropriate for two reasons: we have to create a system that people trust and they currently distrust the jury system, and, two, most decisions required in medical cases are not concrete, they are medical judgments of what a proper standard of care is. Those types of judgments are traditionally made by judges not a jury. It’s not at all a radical departure to suggest that judges are supposed to set the standards of behavior which is how this court would be organized. But they could make appeals to a regular court.

Why did you choose medicine as the first area of law to tackle?

Medicine is important to all Americans. And it is crying out for a reliable legal system as the foundation to begin rebuilding trust and good judgment.

What do you hope to accomplish with the Common Good coalition?

We want to change the legal philosophy of the country and, specifically, to restore the capacity of Americans to do what they believe is sensible. This cannot be accomplished except by restoring authority and restoring responsibility to judges, principals and other authority figures to do what is right. People have to be accountable, but not to every angry person. If you let one angry person invoke years of legal processes that one person gets to bully the rest of society and we all feel less free because we’re scared that that person might be next to us. We plan to take the case to the American public by engaging civic groups all over the country, engaging leaders of universities, schools, industries and political leaders.

How long could that take?

We’re just getting the ball rolling which is the most important part. In a year to two years we will have significant momentum-not the final reforms, but the consensus for the need to reform. So the other changes will occur naturally over the course of a decade or so. Thousands have already signed up.

Why you?

I think I have a knack for understanding the relationship between legal structures and human feelings and responses, and I’ve tried to figure out how the American legal system went wrong for the last 10 to 12 years, and now I’d like to fix it.

Do you see any conflicts between your role as a civic crusader trying to reform the legal system and your day job as a litigator with Covington & Burling?

I once lost a job because of my civic activities. But my practice here is mergers and acquisition work. I work for a big law firm that represents lots of well-known companies with a variety of interests-some would be supportive, some conflicting. But they have been supportive. I wrote editorials for campaign-finance reform even as the law firm supported Sen. Mitch McConnell [who filed a legal challenge to the campaign-finance law]. The firm has a long tradition of public service and has worked with leaders in both parties. And with Common Good, I am not talking about tort reform but how the legal system affects doctors and teachers.

What areas of reform will you focus on next?

This flawed philosophy of law in the name of individual rights has taken away people’s freedom to do what they believe is sensible. Fixing it implies legal changes in most areas of social interaction. There’s a general fear that pervades the culture at large of litigation over everything. We want to restore the authority of judges to decide who can sue for what so people feel comfortable dealing with each other. The next area is education. Then disabled laws, which are very important, but require someone to draw the line. And relations in the workplace and civil-service reform. This will take a few years. It’s really about changing the frame of reference. There is nothing harder than changing the frame of reference; but once you begin to change it, all the other reforms happen automatically. Litigation has a different feeling if someone is suing for $100,000 for lost wages or for $10 million in punitive damages. Justice is about balance, not extortion.