Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening
Decision Date | 01 September 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
Citation | 349 Md. 660,709 A.2d 1230 |
Parties | PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED et al. v. Parris N. GLENDENING et al. , |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John Henry Lewin, Jr. (Venable, Baetjer and Howard, L.L.P., on brief), Baltimore, for appellants.
Carmen M. Shepard, Deputy Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen.; John B. Howard, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., all on brief), Baltimore, for appellees.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER and WILNER, JJ., and ROBERT L. KARWACKI, Judge (retired), Specially Assigned.
The sole issue before the Court is the legality of a contingency fee contract executed by the Attorney General of Maryland and a private law firm for the purpose of representing the State in a major tort litigation. We shall hold that the contract, which was authorized by the Governor and approved by the Board of Public Works, is valid.
On March 27, 1996, the Attorney General, after receiving authorization from the Governor, entered into a contingency fee contract (hereinafter, the "Contract") with a private law firm (hereinafter, "outside counsel") to "provide legal counsel, representation, and litigation services to the Attorney General and the State of Maryland in connection with litigation against the tobacco industry." p 2.1. The Contract states that the Attorney General contracted with outside counsel for the following three (3) reasons:
p Preamble. Pursuant to the Contract, the Id. 2 Outside counsel's responsibilities are also enumerated in the Contract as follows:
p 2.1 A through H. The State, through the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is obligated to appoint one full-time administrative staff person to work with outside counsel as project coordinator. p 2.1 I.
According to the Contract, compensation of outside counsel is contingent upon the State's recovery; outside counsel will receive compensation if and only if a money judgment is obtained as a result of the tobacco litigation. With respect to the fee, the Contract provides that outside counsel "will be paid a fee of 25% of the recovered funds plus the reasonable expenses of litigation incurred." p 3.1. If no damages are recovered, the Attorney General and the State will owe nothing to outside counsel. p 3.2. In the event of the recovery of damages, the Contract provides for the method of payment. That provision requires outside counsel to proceed as follows:
p 3.3. Hence, after outside counsel collects 25% of the gross judgment amount, in addition to reasonable attorneys' expenses, the remaining amount, 75% of the gross recovery less attorneys' expenses, is the State's collection, 3 which is transmitted to the Attorney General, who, by law, must deposit the collected funds into the State Treasury.
All terms and provisions of the Contract were negotiated and agreed to by the Attorney General and outside counsel. In addition, members of the Board of Public Works, namely, the Governor, Treasurer and Comptroller, also approved and signed the Contract.
On January 22, 1996, in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, several tobacco manufacturers and tobacco-related companies, (hereinafter, the "appellants"), 4 filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Governor Parris N. Glendening, Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. and Secretary of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Martin P. Wasserman, (hereinafter, collectively, the "appellees"), challenging the legality of the Contract. 5 Soon thereafter, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The appellants contended that the Contract, which authorizes outside counsel to institute and prosecute an action on behalf of the State primarily against tobacco manufacturers for reimbursement of public funds expended to provide health care for tobacco-related illnesses, 6 is invalid because the Attorney General lacks constitutional or statutory authority to compensate outside counsel on a contingent fee basis. Specifically, they argued that, because the underlying tobacco litigation sought reimbursement for the expenditure of "public funds," any recovery would constitute "State funds," in toto and, as such, expenditures thereof must be authorized by a specific legislative appropriation. There has not been any such appropriation enacted by the General Assembly in this case, they pointed out. The appellants further argued that the Contract violates due process and public policy because it provides outside counsel with an improper financial stake in the outcome of the underlying litigation potentially, four billion dollars, 25% of the sixteen billion dollars recovery sought.
The appellees countered, arguing that the Attorney General, with the Governor's permission, has the constitutional and statutory authority to retain outside counsel on a contingent fee basis, in order to pursue a suit of significant public interest on behalf of the State. Furthermore, the appellees maintained, the contingency fee contract does not violate the appellants' due process rights because the Attorney General, the state official with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kotterman v. Killian
...111 Ariz. 279, 280-81, 528 P.2d 623, 624-25 (1974). ¶35 Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening, 349 Md. 660, 709 A.2d 1230, 1241 (1998) ("gross recovery from the tobacco litigation is not 'State' or 'public' money" until deposited into state trea......
-
State v. Lead Industries, Ass'n, Inc.
...of the Attorney General, where a contingent fee agreement is involved, be "final, sole and unreviewable." Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening, 349 Md. 660, 709 A.2d 1230, 1243 (1998).51 As we have sought to explain in some detail earlier in this opinion, attorneys general are charged with the ......
-
Ehrlich v. Perez
...Md. 239, 250, 627 A.2d 1039, 1044-45 (1993); Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230, 242, 13 A.2d 630, 636 (1940); Philip Morris v. Glendening, 349 Md. 660, 681, 709 A.2d 1230, 1240 (1998). Maryland Code (1985, Repl. Vol. 2006), State Finance and Procurement Article, §§ 7-205, 7-234(a) and (c) like......
-
Md. Transp. Auth. Police Lodge # 34 of The Fraternal Order of Police Inc. v. Md. Transp. Auth.
...to represent the State in litigation against the tobacco industry. See id. at 449-50, 773 A.2d 504; see also Philip Morris, Inc. v. Glendening, 349 Md. 660, 709 A.2d 1230 (1998); State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 179 Md.App. 140, 944 A.2d 1167, cert. denied, 405 Md. 65, 949 A.2d 653 (2008). Aft......
-
The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance.
...companies as a state attorney general and is now suing opioid companies as a private attorney). (347.) Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening, 709 A.2d 1230,1237 (Md. 1998) (citing to MD. CODE ANN., STATE GOV'T [section] 6-105(b)(1) (LexisNexis (348.) Id. at 1239. (349.) State ex rel. Lynch v. Le......