State attorneys general should shut up. At least they ought to quit filing lawsuits — per the WSJ today. The AGs’ sin? "Go[ing] Wild".
The Journal’s editorial page wants somebody to rein in the 50 AGs (43 of whom hold their office by virtue of popular election). The editors desire imposing "uniform rules governing [the AGs’] conduct" on these tribunes of the people.
The source of the rules and thus the guarantor of their wisdom? Why, "an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce" — that guardian of corporate accountability, defender of consumer and worker rights, and champion of ordinary citizens. Count Blawgletter skeptical.
Par for the course, you say? Alright. But in the next to last paragraph of their editorial the scribes state that paying lawyers on an hourly basis instead of on a contingency "would eliminate a gross conflict of interests." That goes too far.
Since when does having a stake in the best result for a client constitute a conflict of interests, much less a gross one? The WSJ may have good and persuasive reasons for diminishing the standing and wealth of trial lawyers, but we don’t see complaining about an honest contract that rewards extraordinary lawyer performance as a valid criticism.
Barry Barnett
