County of Santa Clara, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.

Case Updates

A California appeals court and the California Supreme Court both upheld the contingent fee arrangement made by the County of Santa Clara. The California Supreme Court also provided a non-exhaustive list of guidelines to assure that public attorneys retain control of the state's litigation.

NCLC filed four times in California courts regarding a contingent fee arrangement made by the County of Santa Clara which granted private attorneys on a contingent fee basis the right to sue paint manufacturers on behalf of the state.

In its first filing, NCLC urged the California Supreme Court to review this case. The court denied the petition for review.

In its second brief, NCLC described 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. 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.

In its third filing, NCLC urged the California Supreme Court to review this case in order to bar local governments’ use of contingency fee arrangements with private counsel to enforce the government’s interests.

After the California Supreme Court granted review, NCLC filed for a fourth time asking the court to bar the use of such agreements.