Case Updates
Mississippi Supreme Court declines to review challenge of attorney general’s use of contingency-fee counsel
January 27, 2016
The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the petition for interlocutory appeal.
U.S. Chamber asks Mississippi’s highest court to consider categorical bar against attorney general’s use of contingency-fee counsel
October 20, 2015
In its brief, the U.S. Chamber supported a petition for interlocutory appeal relating to challenges to an attorney general’s fee arrangements with plaintiffs’ counsel.
The brief argues that the retention by an attorney general of private attorneys on a contingency-fee basis violates federal due process, and further urges the court to apply a categorical bar against the use by the attorney general of contingency-fee counsel in quasi-criminal cases. It also argues that use of these arrangements by state attorneys general is an abdication of their duties to enforce the law by delegating quasi-criminal enforcement power to self-interested private attorneys.
This brief was filed jointly with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
Michael B. Wallace, Rebecca Hawkins, and Charles E. Cowan of Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A. served as co-counsel for PhRMA and the U.S. Chamber in this case.
Case Documents
- Petition for Interlocutory Appeal -- BMS v. Hood (Mississippi Supreme Court).pdf
- Respondents' Response to Petitioners' Motion to Stay Petition for Interlocutory Appeal -- BMS v. Hood (Mississippi Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- BMS v. Hood (Mississippi Supreme Court).pdf
- Hood Response to US Chamber -- BMS v. Hood (Mississippi Supreme Court).pdf
- Hood Response to Fresenius -- BMS v. Hood (Mississippi Supreme Court).pdf
- Order Denying Petition for Interlocutory Appeal -- BMS v. Hood (Mississippi Supreme Court).pdf