California’s local governments are facing historic fiscal challenges. From San Diego to Sacramento, cities and counties are staring down budget deficits that threaten essential services. Instead of helping, the Legislature is poised to make things worse.
Senate Bill 29, introduced by Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, is a prime example of Sacramento’s misplaced priorities. This bill extends a temporary program that allows billboard trial lawyers to recover additional unlimited damages in personal injury cases. It would include “pain and suffering” damages on top of the compensation and punitive damages California already permits. This bill would allow plaintiffs – and their lawyers – to attempt to recover triple damages.
No one disputes that victims deserve fair and just compensation. But SB 29 is not about fairness, it is about inflating payouts for billboard trial lawyers who often pocket 30 to 50 percent of damages.
While trial lawyers benefit from massive legal payouts, taxpayers and local governments lose.
Local governments have long been prime targets for billboard attorneys. Suing cities and counties has become a big business in California. In the city of Los Angeles, for example, lawsuit payouts cost taxpayers nearly $300 million in 2024 – three times more than what the city paid out in 2022.
The consequences for increased legal costs for local governments are real and immediate. Los Angeles is already facing a $300 million shortfall. San Francisco reports an $876 million deficit over two years. Sacramento is staring at $44 million in red ink, while the City of Orange had to cut tens of millions from their budget in order to balance it for this fiscal year.
Adding unlimited new liabilities to these already strained budgets means critical resources will be diverted away from core services to cover inflated legal settlement payouts. Every dollar drained by expanded lawsuits is a dollar less for law enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance, and community programs that Californians depend on.
This is not how fiscal responsibility works. Sacramento cannot keep passing laws that push costs onto cities and counties without any regard for the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill. Local governments cannot serve as ATMs for the trial bar, and Californians should not be expected to quietly foot the bill for policies that reward special interests at the expense of their own communities.
Extending a policy of unlimited triple monetary damages recovery now is unnecessary and irresponsible. It destabilizes local budgets at precisely the moment when they are most vulnerable. Cities and counties are already making difficult choices about which programs to cut or reduce. SB 29 would only compound those pressures, forcing local officials to spend even more time and money defending against massive, unpredictable lawsuits instead of investing in public safety, housing and infrastructure.
If the state is serious about restoring trust and financial stability, it should stop enacting bills like SB 29 and start working with, not against, local communities. Sacramento should be helping cities and counties close their deficits and strengthen services, not layering on new costs that make their challenges worse.
Local taxpayers deserve relief, not new burdens. They deserve safer streets, better infrastructure, and thriving community programs, not Sacramento’s habit of writing blank checks that others must cash.
That is why I stand firmly against SB 29. California’s fiscal problems will not be solved by squeezing local governments even further. It is time we prioritize the financial health of our communities over the profits of trial lawyers.
Diane Dixon represents the 72nd Assembly District in the California Legislature, which includes Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods and Lake Forest.
