Does a contingent fee give lawyers too much control over public nuisance cases?
Or can public entities control the lawyers enough to prevent abuse of the governmental power they wield?
The Supreme Court of California heard argument on those questions this week (finally). Kimberley Kralowec at The UCL Practitioner gives us a blow-by-blow.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held two years ago that public entities may, indeed, retain private lawyers on a contingent fee basis so long as the entities supervise them and hold a veto on strategic and tactical decisions.
A court in the Province of New Brunswick ruled the same way last year.
Blawgletter pondered the questions At Some Length in January 2008.
We come out the same way today — as, apparently, the Golden State Supreme Court will.