Good news: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an unusual but important legal challenge in a case involving Governor Ed Rendell’s hiring of a contingency fee law firm to sue a drug manufacturer on behalf of the state.
The lawsuit—which we first wrote about in April—concerns Bailey Perrin & Bailey, a Houston law firm tapped by the Rendell administration to prosecute Janssen Phamaceuticals over the marketing of its antipsychotic drug Risperdal. When states lack the resources or expertise to bring certain suits, it’s not uncommon for them to seek help from private lawyers. …
In agreeing to hear the challenge, the state Supreme Court said it will consider, among other things, “whether Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP, should be disqualified because the due process guarantees of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions prohibit the Commonwealth from delegating the exercise of its sovereign powers to private counsel with a direct contingent financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.”
The WSJ makes a big deal out of donations the firm made to Governor Rendell’s campaign while negotiating the contract. If there’s an issue there, this appeal won’t address it.
Drug & Device Law has a copy of the petition for review, which bizarrely claimed companies accused of ripping off taxpayers have a due process right to force the government to hire only lawyers who are "impartial."
Of course, everyone wants government officials to be "impartial." But once those impartial officials have made the decision to sue, common sense dictates they hire lawyers who will "act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf," as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.
The real issue is whether the Commonwealth may hire lawyers on the same terms as businesses and individuals do every day or if the Commonwealth is forced to use a particularly wasteful system invented by corporate lawyers that came to prominence in the 1970s (and is being rejected today) as a means of extracting greater profits from business clients by creating unnecessary work for recent law graduates.
You can guess what I think: the appeal is a blatant attempt to make litigation more expensive for the government, thereby making it harder for the government to sue companies when they cheat or injure taxpayers.
If there was pay-for-play, that’s obviously illegal and unethical, but contingent fee litigation itself is a win-win for taxpayers, as it protects the public coffers (no fee if they lose), preserves state cash for other use (no billables to pay at the end of each month), and ensures the matter will be prosecuted in a prompt and efficient manner, rather than through the relentless fee churning that characterizes complex litigation billed by the hour.
Examples of waste by the hour aren’t hard to find: the litigation (excluding trial) of a few trust documents at Princeton was reached $40 million for each side. The white collar criminal defense of an executive for accounting fraud was a "feeding frenzy" of $12 million. Compare that to the $0.00 that Pennsylvania taxpayers have paid so far for the prosecution of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.
It should be noted that the "among other things" to be considered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are:
A. Whether 71 P.S. § 732-103 dictates that Petitioner lacks standing to
seek disqualification of Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP on the basis of alleged
violations of constitutional law.
B. Whether the Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-101 et seq., authorizes the Office
of General Counsel’s contingent fee arrangement with Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP.
C. Whether Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP, should be disqualified because the
General Assembly did not authorize the contingent fee arrangement between
the Office of General Counsel and the law firm, such that the agreement
violates Article III, § 24 and the separation of powers mandate of the
The first question is a substantial one. 71 P.S. § 732-103 reads in full:
No party to an action, other than a Commonwealth agency including the Departments of Auditor General and State Treasury and the Public Utility Commission, shall have standing to question the authority of the legal representation of the agency.
Such would appear to be a clear indication by the General Assembly that choice of counsel is a political question.
Nonetheless, an interesting and important case to watch. Will Pennsylvania taxpayers be required to open their wallets again?