There is a lot of disagreement over whether contingency fee
arrangements between client and lobbyist should be permitted. Many cities,
counties, and states prohibit arrangements where lobbyists are paid
only if they succeed. The principal reason is that this arrangement encourages ethical misconduct. It
encourages lobbyists to do everything they can to win, which may be good in a private adversary suit, but is not appropriate in a public context, where winning
involves changes in public policy or obtaining public contracts, grants, or
permits.
Historically, courts have seen contingency fee arrangements relating to government action as leading to corruption and harmful to the public's trust in its government. But lawyers have argued that it works well for them, and allows more people to hire lobbyists (although there is no evidence that this actually occurs).
An investigative piece in the New York Times last week shows what can happen when lawyers being paid via contingency fee arrangements lobby state attorneys general. What the lawyers are lobbying for is to have AGs bring suits that will help their clients, and them, win their cases. These lawyers are acting as procurement lobbyists, for themselves and their clients.
Historically, courts have seen contingency fee arrangements relating to government action as leading to corruption and harmful to the public's trust in its government. But lawyers have argued that it works well for them, and allows more people to hire lobbyists (although there is no evidence that this actually occurs).
An investigative piece in the New York Times last week shows what can happen when lawyers being paid via contingency fee arrangements lobby state attorneys general. What the lawyers are lobbying for is to have AGs bring suits that will help their clients, and them, win their cases. These lawyers are acting as procurement lobbyists, for themselves and their clients.
