Cape Enrage, New Brunswick, Canada.

Blawgletter has noted cases, in California and Rhode Island, that question the ethics and legality of public entities' hiring of private lawyers to handle civil claims on a contingent fee basis.

We've also said we think states, cities, counties, villages, hamlets, and wide spots in the road should, and rightly do, enjoy the option of paying lawyers a fee only if they win.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed.  The decision of its counterpart in the Golden State remains up in the air (after full briefing).

Meanwhile, a trial court in the Maritime Province of New Brunswick rejected tobacco companies' attack on NB's fee deal with its lawyers.  Court of Queen's Bench Judge Thomas Cyr ruled, according to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation:

The assertion advanced by the defendants that all government lawyers have a duty distinct from any owed by non-government lawyers to act 'impartially' is, in my view, incorrect.

The public interest duties applicable to government lawyers in civil litigation matters are distinct from those applicable to Crown prosecutors in that government lawyers acting in civil litigation matters are not subject to a duty of impartiality.

Just so.

 If our feed lived in NB, almost one third of it would speak French as its mother tongue.