Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening has failed the residents of Maryland for the second straight year. With his veto of legislation that would increase the maximum amount for which a person can sue in small-claims courts, Maryland's small-claims courts will remain accessible only to those seeking restitution for near-trivial amounts.

Both consumers and businesses often are faced with disputes over amounts as much as $10,000 or $20,000. Such disagreements are of a great enough magnitude that they simply cannot be written off by the party who is owed the money.

However, these amounts are not enough to merit hiring an attorney, since an attorney's fee would eat up most or a11 of any money awarded by the court.

A logical venue for such cases is small-claims court. Such courts are designed for people representing themselves without attorneys, in cases with simple issues such as those faced frequently by consumers and businesses. Maryland's small-claims courts, however, take cases only where the amount in dispute is $2,500 or less.

This limit, the eighth lowest in the country, has not been raised in a decade. Today's consumers and small businesses, faced with disputes that are more than several times this amount, find themselves in a legal no man's land - where their disputes are too expensive for small-claims court but not large enough for an attorney.

In 2001, the Maryland General Assembly unanimously passed legislation raising the state's small-claims jurisdictional ceiling from $2,500 to $5,000.

Glendening not only vetoed this legislation, but brazenly noted in his veto message that the veto came at the request of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association, one of his greatest campaign contributors.

In its 2002 session, the General Assembly again unanimously passed identical legislation raising the small-claims dollar limit. However, unchastened by editorials and letters from constituents urging him to support this legislation, on May 15 the governor once again vetoed the bill, thus denying the people of Maryland a simple and equitable forum in which to resolve their disputes.

Outrageously, this veto was again accompanied by a message noting that the veto was prompted by the opposition of the trial bar.

It is unclear who is acting more selfishly: the governor for putting his patrons ahead of the interests of the state, or the trial lawyers for sacrificing the interests of justice in the quest for clients. In either case, the people of Maryland will be fortunate to see a new face in the Statehouse next year, someone who might be more supportive of their interests and not hold them hostage to the lawyer cartel.