Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with Auditor Stacey Pickering and said the $14 million given to now-disbarred attorney Joey Langston was "public funds". The court remanded the case to the trial court for further "disposition" of the case. In other words, decide how much money the Auditor should recover from Langston if I am reading this correctly. Copy of decision.
The court also also issued a similar opinion in the Microsoft case.
State Auditor Stacey Pickering issued the following press release:
"(Jackson, Miss.) The Mississippi Supreme Court released 2 opinions today on cases before them involving State Auditor Stacey Pickering, Attorney General’s Office, MCI and Microsoft. The Supreme Court released an opinion that is shared by former State Auditor, now Governor Phil Bryant and State Auditor Stacey Pickering, fees paid to outside counsel as a part of contingency fee contracts are public funds and must be appropriated either by the Mississippi Legislature or through the Attorney General’s contingency fund.
In both cases, MCI and Microsoft, The Supreme Court’s opinion accepts the Auditor’s arguments and every defense is dismissed with only one Justice dissenting, and then only partially.
Excerpt from today’s opinion in “Stacey Pickering, in His Capacity As Auditor For the State of Mississippi v. Langston Law Firm, P.A.; Joseph C. Langston; State of Mississippi; Lundy & Davis; And Aylstock Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz”:
The plain language of Section 7 – 5 – 7 mandates the outside counsel retained by the Attorney General be paid only from the Attorney General’s contingent fund or from funds appropriated to the Attorney General by the Legislature,” – NO. 2010-CA-00362-SCT, Supreme Court of Mississippi.
“The Supreme Court agreed that the Mississippi Statute uses the mandatory term ‘shall,’ and we view this mandate as declaratory that all fees paid through contingency fee contracts are public funds and must be appropriated by the Mississippi Legislature,” said State Auditor Stacey Pickering. “These rulings today are a victory for open government and transparency as well as for the taxpayers of Mississippi. These opinions set a clear precedent in Mississippi ensuring that the purse strings of the State of Mississippi are to be controlled by the Mississippi Legislature. These funds are public funds, subject not only to control by the Legislature but also subject to audit by the State Auditor’s Office. I appreciate my predecessor Governor Bryant for his leadership on this issue when it began in 2007, and I am overwhelming pleased with today’s action by the Mississippi Supreme Court.”
###
Elected as Mississippi’s State Auditor in 2007, Stacey Pickering has recovered more than $4.9 million in embezzled, misspent or misappropriated funds. He is a seventh generation Mississippian from Jones County. Auditor Pickering currently serves on the Domestic Working Group for the Office of the Comptroller General of the United States. He also serves on the Financial Management and Intergovernmental Affairs and Performance Audit Committees for the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers and is a member of the National State Auditors Association. Prior to serving as State Auditor, Pickering served as a State Senator from 2004-2007 representing Jones County and is credited for co-authoring legislation allowing Mississippi to end lawsuit abuse. Throughout his political career, Pickering has made tremendous strides in creating more accountability and transparency in government and continues to promote fiscal responsibility and the need for more efficiency and productivity in government. For more information on Stacey Pickering, visit www.osa.state.ms.us/auditors-bio.htm."
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Court strikes down lawyer fees for Langston
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Langston will have to pay back everything he received from MCI [if he still has that much], money goes to state coffers, Hood goes to the legislature to get the same money appropriated to pay money back over to Langston.
prediction: the Legislature doesn't play ball and Langston winds up suing, and winning, to get his money back. The S. Ct. didn't say the fee doesn't get paid and didn't say the fee was unreasonable. This is a waste of time and money because Langston will, in the end, get the money.
w/ reasonable heads on both sides this could be worked out in an hour. JL created something from nothing, and the state benefitted. but you'd have to change the names and the egos. this was back in the golden goose days before they ripped its head off. They "imagineered" this claim, took it to the AG and off they went.
3:04 first half of your prediction is likely. Legislature doesn't 'play ball' and pay the amount that Conway allowed, but appropriates a reasonable payment based on something other than how much Hood's campaign needed at a particular time.
But the more interesting prediction is 'what's next'? That's where the fun and games will begin.
Do we know how much the contingency agreement was for? Leaving out the real property, the "public funds" received are $118 million. 15% of that is $17.7 million. Could the state actually lose money on this?
Guess all tobacco lawyers will have to return their money under the same legal theory.
So I'm puzzled where this goes now. Suppose the Legislature allocates a symbolic $1 award. Does Langston have any recourse?
Is the result to make any outside firm flatly refuse to work on a contingency basis, if that's going to make its getting paid subject to politics?
If Langston is forced to sue, he will probably ask to enforce the contingent fee as written, so yes, this political shot at Hood may cost the state more money. Langston WILL get paid in the end AT LEAST the $14 million.
3:04
What if Langston is offered a reasonable "hourly rate"? I know that is unheard of in the trial lawyer community, but its what the other side is always forced to pay to defend cases brought forth by the Langstons of the world. I realize that under this theory, he might not receive but a few million dollars. Anyone want to bet on his pending lawsuit against the state?
5:54, the law on atty fees takes contingency into account. Whatever my little disagreements with the plaintiff bar, they lose some cases and offset those with the winners. A winning case pays for a few losers as well.
God love all the lawyer types who want to sidestroke this as a least cost approach. Same group of fools who were all-in with Moore's unconstitutional Partnership skim.
Regardless of where you stand on the ultimate issue, does anyone else have a problem with Justice Dickinson's snarky and disrespectful tone in this opinion? Some of it would be inapproprate even if he were writing a brief advocating for one of the parties. The tone of the opinion does not strike me as being properly judicial and instead seems openly antagonistic and disrespectful.
nice try 7:19. Justice Dickinson is an excellent judge and does a fantastic job for the people of Mississippi.
7:19, have you compared Justice Dickinson's tone with that of the AG's and Langston's briefs and arguments? And AG's arguments in the pardon case? Think maybe the Supremes were responding to the AG's attitude toward the Court.
The tone in nearly all litigation has grown very disrespectful and scornful. Neither side is able to escape that brush.
The Court tried to address it in the past, but apparently came to the conclusion that they were incapable of doing anything about it or that they could have more fun doing the same.
I posted the original comment regarding the tone of Justice Dickinson's opinion, which I found to be unnecessarily antagonistic and lacking in proper judicial decorum. I made no comment as to Justice Dickinson's status as a great American nor did I call into question his judicial accomplishments or even the wisdom of the ruling in this case. I think there's a difference in doing the right thing and doing the right thing the right way. As for comparing the opinion to the briefs, I feel there is and should be a fundamental difference in the type of writing that is appropriate when writing as an advocate for a party versus an appellate court's judicial opinions. My only point - I hate the general decline in civility I have seen in the profession and it is even more disappointing to see evidence of that in a Supreme Court opinion.
The bottom line is that Langston will get paid the $14 million from the State. The Court never questioned his right to the attorneys fees. They just stated that the money for attorneys fees should have went to the State first and then, be allocated to Langston. I am sure some Republican in the legislature will attempt to limit his attorneys fees to an amount less than $14 million and the parties will be back in Court.
1.39, I respectfully disagree with part of what you are saying. You are laying blame at the Justices' feet. Wrong set of feet. When the state's highest elected official and his atty friend, who got $14 million in a manner not consistent with current law, stand before the justices and declare certain things law that are simply not law, then it is the Justices' who should clearly state the correct law. They did that.
Justices did a good job in correcting all misinformation as to what exactly current law says and allows. What's sad is that there were so many things argued before them that were so incredibly wrong because they contradicted current law. If in doubt, read the opinion. It’s unbelievable the number of wrong things that were claimed.
Regarding contracts, the justices said it very clearly, "contracts with lawyers hold no special privilege. They are--as are all other contracts--subject to, and restricted by, applicable law."
Doing the right thing in the right way--I guess I'm not looking for the Justices to go---now, it’s ok, son, we know you be so sweet, but dis here is wrong, but we won't tell anyone cause we don't want to hurt your feelings.
They were not elected to hold hands, sing kumbaya, and guard public figures. They were elected to know and apply the law.
Are all the republicans going to be just as outraged when the State of Mississippi and more importantly DEQ fires Mike Moore, Fred Banks, & Phelps Dunbar, so DEQ's head can hire her old firm and GOP supporter, the Brunini Law firm?
" When the state's highest elected official and his atty friend, who got $14 million in a manner not consistent with current law, "
'state's highest elected official' - what did the governor claim?
Lawyers love to think their righteousness should be paid.
Post a Comment