Opening Briefs Filed in Santa Clara v. Superior Court

This blog has previously mentioned the Santa Clara v. Superior Court case, now pending in the California Supreme Court.  See here and here and here. [Full disclosure:  this blog's author is one of the defense counsel of record in that case.]  As reflected at the court's online docket, the issue presented is:  "May a public entity retain private counsel to prosecute a public nuisance abatement action under a contingent fee agreement?"

The defendants' opening briefs on the merits are now on file, and both explain why attorneys who represent the government on a contingency fee basis should not be allowed to wield sovereign power in prosecuting inherently public actions.  You can find a short description of the underlying public nuisance litigation that gave rise to the legal question now before the court, plus a description of the two defense briefs (with links to those briefs), in a post to legalnewsline.com.  That post includes this excerpt from one of the briefs:  "It has long been established that, in deciding whether and how to prosecute criminal proceedings, the government's lawyers must remain free from any personal pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings, including a contingent fee interest."   The same is true for quasi-criminal proceedings like public nuisance suits.