Q: I read in the Houston Chronicle that in a trial you were in, one time you paid off judges to alter the effects of that. Can you -- do you have anything to say about that?

This is a long and twisted and rambling answer that will make your eyeballs cross but hang in there:

A: Yeah, well, I guess the Karl Rove truck begins. Let me just tell you something. The people that we are going up against will swift boat you all day long, and they will continue to swift boat you, and I can assure you of a couple things. The people that we're going up against -- you better be ready to win. If you're going to a knife fight, don't let the other guy have the big knife. I can assure you that for the last 20 years, I have fought the fights against the large corporations. I have fought the fights for the people who that weren't flamethrowers -- on behalf of the people of Texas that frankly are lucky that they have a match. And we have got to be ready. Because I don't care about what they're gonna make up this time, what they're gonna make up next time, it's coming, and we've got to be ready to fight back.

The people of Texas want to hear about issues and they don't want character assassinations. But I can tell you that the way that I handle that, is I tell my wife don't watch the TV, don't read the blogs, don't read this, don't read that, ok. I can take those blows, and will take them. Ok, and I'm ready to take those blows, but I'm ready to fight back. I told a joke about Karl Rove. He came down to Harlingen, Texas, with John Cornyn, to raise money, thereby giving rise to the joke that, you know, in South Texas we know about a guy named Dick Cheney, but at least when he comes he brings a shotgun; this guy brings a snake. [laughter]

The Republican machinery - the Republican machinery -- will attack me, they will attack Rick, they will attack, anybody who's a Democrat. It will come. But you better have someone who's ready, willing, and able to fight back, and if we don't, we're gonna be in a world of hurt.

So, what did the UT students take away from that long non-answer?  Here's what one student who recently landed in America from India and who has no background knowledge of US politics had to say:

"You know that thing about having a big knife when you go into a fight?"
I think what he was saying that he has a lot of money and he can afford to buy judges."

The letter in question (pdf) was written by Mikal Watts to opposing legal council in an effort to entice them to accept a $60,000,000.00 settlement rather than filing an appeal.  In the letter he lists the many reasons he believes the appeal would be unsuccessful including some history of similar cases where the plaintiffs were awarded "nine figure settlements."

So far the letter represents exactly what I would what from my legal representation but things start to break down on pages 7 and 8.

In the rest of the letter Watts explains that he knows exactly how to prepare such a case and there will be no errors.  Again, what I would want from legal council.

I read the part in question like this:  It won't do you any good to seek an appeal because I'm an excellent lawyer who has influence with the judges because I have made substantial campaign contributions to them therefore they are inclined to be favorable toward me.  I guess I'm not alone in that interpretation because the Houston Chronicle asked why this wouldn't disqualify Watts from the Senate race.

Mikal Watts of San Antonio, a lawyer and candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. senator, has done the reputations of the courts and the trial lawyers no good.

As reported by the Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe, in 2001 Watts wrote to opposing counsel claiming that his firm's campaign contributions had won the hearts and minds of the justices on the 13th Court of Appeals, "all good Democrats." If Watts and his firm indeed gave campaign gifts with the expectation of influencing the court's decisions, it would constitute an illegal bribe. If Watts was just making an idle threat to intimidate a defendant in a lawsuit, he behaved unethically.

As a well- and largely self-financed candidate for high office, Watts owes voters an explanation: Does he think his campaign donations influence the outcome of cases? Regardless of the answer, Watts should explain to the voters why his outrageous claim does not violate the public trust and disqualify him from the office he seeks.

We the People need our trial lawyers to protect us from abuses by big business negligence.  In this regard, Mikal Watts has done an excellent job of defending the little people.  However, his apparent attempt to purchase influence in trials and to purchase a senate seat does no favor to those in his profession and only adds to the bad wrap that Republicans give to trial lawyers.

An editorial in the San Antonio Express News calls for judicial reform: Editorial: Watts' letter shows judicial reform need

From Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

8.04 (a) A lawyer shall not... (5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.
8.02 (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.