"Look at the number of amicus briefs," opined a legal journalist about the closely watched reviews of contingency by Supreme Courts in California and Pennsylvania. "Obviously, that highlights this issue is important to lots of people."
That confirmed my notion that not only the number of briefs but also what organizations submitted them and their tone and content provided a sort of Greek Chorus on a matter of law, public policy, and the common good. Recall there were more than 75 amicus briefs filed in the Rhode Island SC review of the lead paint public nuisance litigation, including contingency.
Contingency could play out to be even more high-stakes than the ruling of the RI SC in lead paint public nuisance. Here is an amicus brief submitted to the CA SC by the National Paint and Coatings Association [NPCA] Download AmicusBrief. And one submitted to the PA SC, also by NPCA Download DC-260-8076FE418. Yesterday in LEGAL NEWSLINE, John O'Brien discussed the amicus brief filed with the CA SC by the influential Washington Legal Foundation. It argues, reports O'Brien, "A contingency fee contract awarded to a Houston firm [Bailey Perrin Bailey] by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell is the ultimate example of 'pay-to-play.'"
However, the fate of contingency is not solely in the hands of the Justices of state SCs. As we bore witness in market-share liability in Wisconsin, the SC there decided it was okay, the legislature passed a bill deciding differently, and the governor counteracted the legislature by vetoing the bill. "Thomas" resulted. The budget crisis in the states could make contingency appear to policy makers as well as the public to be a must-have. Those states could override their SC rulings on contingency.
I have been predicting that contingency will sooner than later wind up in the US SC. That doesn't mean it will stop there. We saw with Ledbetter that the Congress could find a way around the US SC. Today, Ledbetter, its terms and conditions determined by Congress not a Court, is being applied throughout America.
Comments