Lawsuit challenges Hood’s right to hire lawyers on contingency fee basis

Apparently there are several lawsuits filed on behalf of the AG’s office where the defense is raising the issue of the AG’s ability to prosecute cases using private lawyers hired on contingency fee contracts.  In Jim Hood v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., the defendants have filed a request for interlocutory appeal on this issue (it was filed  Oct. 13, 2015; the Court has not granted or denied the petition yet).

In 2012, the legislature enacted MCA Sect. 7-5-8 which places limits on the AG’s ability to hire private outside counsel to pursue lawsuits on its behalf. Sect. 7-5-8(2) states that “A contingency fee shall not be based on penalties or civil fines awarded or any amounts attributable to penalties or civil fines.”

In June 2012, a month before the statute became effective, the AG, through a Texas law firm (Bailey Perrin Bailey, PLLC),   filed a lawsuit against two pharmaceutical companies “seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ marketing of the prescription drug Plavix®-recommended by leading medical guidelines and one of the most widely prescribed medicines in the world-was a fraud, because Plavix® is less effective and more expensive than alternatives such as aspirin.”   According to the Defendants:

The current complaint does not claim the State of Mississippi was damaged by the marketing of Plavix®. It seeks only civil penalties and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to engage in misleading marketing of the drug. It asks for $ I 0,000 in penalties for every claimed Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCP A”) violation, apparently for every time Plavix® was sold in the State. See Appendix (“APP.”) 2, at 22. Yet, as the State surely knows, Plavix® went generic in 2012 and these Defendants have not actively promoted it since then.

The Defendants counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that the contingency fee contract was illegal.   The chancellor dismissed the counterclaim and the Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal.

Here’s the petition 

The Chamber of Commerce of the USA and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America have filed for permission to file this amicus brief. 

The AG’s response 

One thought on “Lawsuit challenges Hood’s right to hire lawyers on contingency fee basis

  1. I guess the Attorney General has never heard of the “learned intermediary” doctrine?

    I was not aware of this litigation but I cannot fathom anything more frivolous. This is like hiring an outside law firm to sue McDonalds because they market their cheeseburgers on TV, but lots of people like to eat Burger King Whoppers.

    DOCTORS prescribe medications. What medication the doctor prescribes is up to the doctor. The state of MS does not decide which medications the doctor can decide might be best for that particular patient.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s