Overview

The County, along with several other local governments, in particular the City and County of San Francisco, filed this action to hold lead paint manufacturers responsible for abating the public nuisance they created by marketing lead paint as a safe product, despite knowing that the product was in fact dangerous, especially to children. The manufacturers filed a motion to bar our retention of private attorneys, claiming that a California Supreme Court opinion prohibits public entities from retaining private attorneys on a contingent fee basis when prosecuting public nuisance actions. In April 2008, the Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in our favor, reversing the trial court’s decision. In July 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review. The County is now awaiting argument before the Supreme Court, having submitted our own brief and coordinated amicus support from ethics professors, the California State Association of Counties, and public health, children’s advocacy, labor, and anti-poverty groups.

• Manufacturers’ Opening Brief on the Merits (filed Oct. 6, 2008)
  Addresses the County’s ability to retain contingency fee counsel before the State Supreme Court
• Public Entities’ Answering Brief (filed Jan. 21, 2009)
  Addressing the County’s ability to retain contingency fee counsel before the State Supreme Court
• Amici Curiae Brief of Legal Ethics Professors Erwin Chemerinsky, Stephen Gillers, Nathaniel E. Gozansky, Matthew I. Hall, Carol M. Langford, Deborah L. Rhode, Mark L. Tuft, W. Bradley Wendel in Support of Petitioners (filed Apr. 27, 2009)
• Amici Curiae Brief of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities in Support of Petitioners (filed Apr. 29, 2009)