Though California has so far escaped from the potentially corruptive influence of contingency-fee agreements between private lawyers and public prosecutors, other states have not been so fortunate.
The Wall Street Journal has published several editorials blasting the unseemly state practice of hiring outside lawyers to sue private companies on a contingency fee basis --and how the trial bar returns the favor with campaign donations to state office holders. The Journal revealed that Oklahoma's attorney general had entered into agreements with private firms to sue tobacco companies and later big-name poultry companies.
Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry just turned down a bill that would have shed light on these deals. According to the Journal, Oklahoma's Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act would have required state agents to use open, competitive bidding for any legal work of more than $5,000. On contracts worth $500,000 or more the governor would have to sign off. It would also have required contingency lawyers to submit a list of hours and expenses, payment for which could not exceed a mere $1,000 an hour.
The paper also wrote about agreements in Pennsylvania (click here and here) and New Mexico.
California's attorneys general and district attorneys have headed off plaintiff lawyer solicitations and conflicts of interest by following the guidance of long-time Justice Stanley Mosk and a unanimous court in the 1985 decision Clancy v. Superior Court, CJAC President John H. Sullivan noted in a news release.
In an amicus brief, CJAC urged the California Supreme Court to preserve the case rule when it considers County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court. The case involves city attorneys and county counsels in a handful of jurisdictions hiring contingency fee lawyers to bring a public nuisance action against lead-based paint manufacturers.
In the CJAC brief, CJAC General Counsel Fred J. Hiestand quotes Mosk, whose 1985 decision spoke strongly of the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process. In it, Mosk proclaimed: "Not only is a government lawyer's neutrality essential to a fair outcome for the litigants in the case in which he is involved, it is essential to the proper function of the judicial process as a whole."
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court - CJAC Amicus Brief.pdf