May states hire private attorneys under contingent fee agreements? On August 28, 2009, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court arguing that private lawyers that sue a manufacturer under a contingent fee contract with the state government have financial motivations that prevent them from acting in the interests of justice on behalf of the people of the state. It is improper to give government-hired attorneys the potential to earn huge profits while wielding the power of government.
Such arrangements are gaining increasing attention and controversy because the retained lawyers often contribute to political campaigns of the officials who hire them.
On 8/17/2010, the court ruled that defendant did not have standing under Pennsylvania law to challenge the authority of the state's legal representation. It therefore did not address the substantive issue regarding the propriety of a state using private contingent-fee lawyers in court.