Not many lawyers can claim to have rubbed shoulders with the likes of Robert Redford and Susan Sarandon. Even fewer can say that they’ve been interviewed by Stephen Colbert and managed to hold their own. But Susan Saladoff has earned bragging rights to both thanks to her documentary film “Hot Coffee,” which turned her into an instant indie celebrity filmmaker after screening at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival.
The fact that Saladoff’s documentary tackles a subject as serious and heavy as tort reform and the American civil justice system is not an insignificant hurdle to overcome when vying for audience popularity, even among the elite independent film cognoscenti. But her documentary, which uses the notorious McDonald’s coffee-burns suit brought by Stella Liebeck to indict the corporate-backed PR machinery that is bankrolling America’s tort reform movement, has been seen by more than 2 million people.
If Saladoff has any say on the matter, “Hot Coffee,” which also had its broadcast premiere on HBO last summer, will be seen by more audiences around the country in the coming months as the lawyer-turned-filmmaker barnstorms her way through the country showing her film to anyone and everyone who expresses interest. “My goal is to get everyone to see this film before the 2012 election,” Saladoff said.
Lawdragon: What made you decide to be a lawyer and how did you end up focusing on personal injury and medical malpractice cases?
Susan Saladoff: I went to law school because I wanted to make positive change in the world, and I initially thought I could do that by going into politics. I wanted to become the first female congresswoman from my district in Pennsylvania. While in law school, I went to a public interest forum and someone said, “You can do good, and you can do well,” and I liked that idea. I went up to the person after the talk. He was the executive director of a new public interest law firm called Trial Lawyers for Public Justice [Tony Roisman], and I asked if I could come work for him. I became the first law clerk at TLPJ, now called Public Justice, and then after graduating from law school I turned down a high paying Wall Street-like law firm job at Skadden Arps to become a staff attorney at TLPJ.
I eventually left the staff position, went on the board of directors and became the 20th national president. I realized while working at TLPJ that I needed to learn how to try cases, because the firm took on precedent-setting cases, many in the tort arena. I was offered a position with the law firm of Shadoan & Michael in Rockville, Maryland (George Shadoan was a founding member of TLPJ), and I went there to learn how to be a trial lawyer. The firm specialized in medical malpractice, which was fascinating to me because I had started college (in Cornell) as a biochemistry major, thinking that I might go to medical school, until I got interested in politics and also realized that I don’t like the sight of blood.
LD: What motivated you to start this film project and how did the idea come about?
SS: I knew for years, essentially since I graduated from law school, that there was an effort by corporate interests to limit access to the courts, which is a limit on access to justice. I had been collecting articles and letters-to-the-editor where myths were being fed to the public, and I kept waiting for others to set the record straight. I became active in organizations dedicated to preserving the civil justice system, but they focused on lobbying and lacked a good public education program. I was trying to push a public education effort because I could see what was happening with TV and radio ads, billboards, letters-to-the-editor, etc. The media was also buying the propaganda about tort reform, and no one seemed to be telling the other side of the story, which was my truth, about the importance of the civil justice system. How it was the only place to hold wrongdoers accountable when they made products that harm us.
In 2008, I thought about taking some time off from my practice. I thought about running for Congress, but quickly realized that wasn’t what I wanted. I love documentary films and I thought I could make a documentary film about what I know and what was important to me. I wrote an outline, not knowing the specific cases that I would cover, but the topics. I had a thesis that started with a public relations campaign by large corporations, which convinced the public that the system was broken. They used the infamous McDonald’s coffee case, distorting or misrepresenting the facts completely to convince the public that there were all these “frivolous” cases. If the public believed that there were these kinds of ridiculous cases, then they would be willing to vote for “reform” which essentially meant giving up their constitutional rights.
“Hot Coffee” tells the truth about the McDonald’s coffee case, which shocks people, and then who was behind the public relations campaign to convince the public to vote against their own self interests, in the form of so-called tort reform. Once they were convinced that the system was broken, they started voting for statutes or candidates who backed tort reform. The film has four story lines, each one is character driven, and each one represents a different way that we as Americans are giving up our constitutional rights everyday to access the court system. Most of us don’t know and don’t care until something bad happens to us or a loved one, and then for the first time, people realize that the system isn’t there for them.
LD: What was the biggest obstacle you’ve had to overcome in making this film?
SS: Raising the money to pay for it.
LD: How long did it take you to finish the documentary?
SS: It took essentially two years from start to finish. I started on January 1, 2009, thinking I was going to take a year off from my practice to make this film. I finished the film on January 11, 2011, and we premiered at the 2011 Sundance film festival on January 24, 2011. The film and I have been on the road since January at film festivals, public screenings and schools getting the message of the film out to the public. My goal is for every American to see the film before they vote in 2012.
LD: Did you have prior experience in filmmaking before you took on this documentary project?
SS: Not really. I had made three short docs about cases and two little comedies that were used at “roasts,” but I never had any formal training. I learned on the job and surrounded myself with experienced filmmakers who helped me through the process.
LD: What was the most important lesson you’ve learned from this whole filmmaking experience?
SS: I learned what I know about life: Have a clear intention and go for it. There is no magic formula for making a film or anything else that people will relate to. People will know when something comes from my heart, and I think that is why the film has done so well. People see the film and even if they don’t agree with everything the film represents, they can tell that it is my passion.
LD: How do you respond to critics who say your film is not exactly an objective telling of legal history?
SS: I don’t know what you mean by “not an objective telling of legal history.” I clearly have a point of view, which is my truth and what I know from practicing law for 25 years. What I also know is that for those 25 years, only one side of the issue was presented to the American public in the form of a massive public relations campaign by large corporate interests and their allies. My film gives an alternative point of view. I am not asking people to change their minds, but to open their minds that there is another point of view, and before people make up their minds about whether tort reform is good for them, they should at least know both sides of the issue. Until my film, most people were making up their minds based on one side only.
LD: What’s the most interesting experience you’ve had since becoming an indie filmmaker celebrity?
SS: Well, I wouldn’t call myself a celebrity, but I have to say the Colbert Report was a lot of fun. What has amazed me, however, is the overwhelmingly positive response to the film from both the Hollywood and the political press. I think people’s eyes are finally opened to another point of view about the civil justice system, which was a goal, to change the conversation and bring another point of view. Not everyone will agree, but let’s have a fair debate with the other side finally represented.
LD: How has the film changed your life?
SS: In more ways than I can begin to articulate here. Every aspect of my life is new, and all great. I am living my dream.
LD: Why did you give up practicing law after 25 years of representing plaintiffs and what’s next on the horizon?
SS: I didn’t intend to give up the practice of law, but because of the success of the film and the message, I have decided to go state by state taking the film and its message to as many communities as possible. I have no idea what the future will bring; I do, however, have many more ideas for films about what I know, the importance of keeping our courts open to all.
