This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

May 29, 2010

Fighting the Unholy Alliance

With oral arguments completed, the California Supreme Court will consider use of contingency fee agreements between government attorneys and private plaintiffs' attorneys, write Randall Christian and Jason Casell.

By Randall L. Christian and Jason H. Casell

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments this month in a case closely watched by plaintiffs' and defense attorneys around the country.

At stake in County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court: whether to uphold the appellate court's reversal of a 25-year-old precedent finding that the government hiring of a private attorney on a contingency fee basis to prosecute a public nuisan...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up