Contingency Fee

Use of Contingency Fee Counsel by the Government
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court
No. H031540
California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District

Describing the illegitimate use of private contingency fee counsel by governments around the country to litigate cases involving their enforcement authority, NCLC urged the California Court of Appeal to bar such use of private counsel.  In this lead paint public nuisance case, the government retained private counsel to litigate on behalf of the government with the promise of a share of the recovery.  In its brief, NCLC explained that the use of contingency fees to compensate litigating counsel turns on its head the traditional dictum that the state achieves its goals whenever justice is done, not when it wins a large award.

Amicus brief filed 7/19/07.

  View  brief

Use of Contingency Fee Counsel by the Government
State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
No. 4:05-cv-00329
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Describing the illegitimate use of private contingency fee counsel by governments around the country to litigate cases involving their enforcement authority, NCLC urged the district court to dismiss Oklahoma's case (brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) against Tyson Foods.  In this case, the government retained private counsel to litigate the case on behalf of the government with the promise of a share of the recovery.  In its brief, NCLC explained that the use of contingency fees to compensate litigating counsel turns on its head the traditional dictum that the state achieves its goals whenever justice is done, not when it wins a large award.

Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed 6/1/07.  Motion for leave to file granted 6/12/07.

  View  brief