Lead Paint Defendant Lawyers Stoop Oh So Low

State's Contract With Outside Attorneys Unconstitutional, Say Lead Paint Industry Lawyers

The argument presented by the defendant paint industry lawyers is interesting in that they do not seem to cite a specific section of the US or Rhode Island Constitutions that would specifically restrict the state from contracting with external lawyers, or how that contract must be constructed.

In any event, it would appear that the paint industry lawyers are hoping that three things would be accomplished by their motion:

1. The case already heard and decided could be reviewed on the basis of state misconduct;
2. The lawyers hired by the state would not receive the lucrative 16% contingency fee agreed to by the state; and
3. There would be a chilling effect created that would cause other attorneys to hesitate in taking such cases or working with the state on such cases.

Ain't it amazing how low big business--and big business lawyers--will go to win a case... even one where the culprits are clearly culpable and guilty of depraved disregard for human safety... the only real bad outcome of the case is that the lobbyists and congress critters that were bought by the paint industry didn't stand trial with this case.

Let us hope that the judge in this case is not of the Scalia school of ridiculous law.

Former makers of lead paint went before the Rhode Island Supreme Court on Monday to prevent the state from honoring a contract with its private lawyers that is potentially worth tens of millions of dollars.

A jury in February held three manufacturers -- Sherwin-Williams Co., Millennium Holdings LLC and NL Industries, Inc. -- liable for creating a public nuisance with lead paint, which was banned in 1978 because it can cause serious health problems in children.

The verdict could cost the companies billions of dollars. A judge will decide later how much, if anything, the companies must pay to clean up the problem.

The attorney general's office hired two private law firms to press the suit, which it filed in 1999. It agreed to pay the outside lawyers more than 16 percent of whatever the state received if it won the case.

On Monday, a lawyer for the industry told justices the contract was unconstitutional because it gave outside lawyers a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Attorney John Tarantino said defendants have the right to know that lawyers representing the government do not stand to gain financially from the case.

He said the attorney general's office would not be able to give bonuses to its staff after a major victory and that outside law firms should be barred from receiving a similar reward.

Assistant Attorney General Neil Kelly argued that the attorney general's office, with limited resources, must depend on outside help in such a massive lawsuit. He said if the state was not allowed to strike such deals with private law firms, it would be hamstrung if it wanted to sue an industry with deep pockets.

"We would be curtailed in our ability to bring a matter like that," Kelly said.

Fidelma Fitzpatrick, an attorney from Motley Rice, the law firm that successfully tried the case, said the companies were incorrectly assuming that lawyers paid on a contingency fee basis had more financial interest in the case than those paid through an hourly fee.

It was unclear when the high court would rule.