The law firm Motley Rice has entered a legal dispute regarding its contract with the State of Alaska in the opioids litigation, described below. Motley Rice asserts that no contract breach occurred and is now seeking attorney fees for its work on the case.
Motley Rice’s stance on the Alaska contract
Motley Rice contends that its 2017 contingency-fee contract with Alaska was validly entered into and should not have been terminated. In a letter dated October 27, the firm stated that it “is proud of the work it has undertaken on behalf of the state,” and maintained that Alaska’s decision to terminate the agreement lacked cause.
The firm also rejected allegations that it failed to disclose other client representations in opioid-related matters or shared confidential information. Alaska’s Department of Law had claimed that Motley Rice “failed to disclose any of its reported conflicts of interest or to seek the necessary waivers required by the agreement” and that the state “has reason to believe that the firm may have shared confidential information obtained through its representation of the State.”
Motley Rice countered that it had informed Alaska about other representations and had not disclosed any confidential state-information to third parties without the state’s consent.
Legal fee recovery sought by Motley Rice
Motley Rice has indicated that Alaska has already recovered approximately US $100 million in its ongoing opioid litigation, and is therefore obligated, according to the firm, to pay for expenses and “
reasonable hourly attorneys’ fees.”
The firm argues that because the contract was terminated without cause, it remains entitled to those fees. As a result, Motley Rice has requested that the state compensate it accordingly.
Background: Alaska’s termination decision and implications
On October 23, Alaska’s Republican-led attorney general’s office notified Motley Rice that their contingency-fee agreement had been terminated. The agreement concerned representation of Alaska in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors.
This move by Alaska followed a comparable decision by Utah’s attorney general to dismiss Motley Rice from opioid litigation.
Additionally, some defendants in the broader opioid litigation have settled, while Alaska is pursuing claims against the pharmacy-benefits manager Express Scripts for allegedly contributing to the epidemic through
unfair trade practices. Express Scripts has denied wrongdoing.
Alaska has asked a federal judge to pause the litigation while it evaluates and hires new counsel.
Why Motley Rice’s position matters
Motley Rice’s defence of its contract and fee claim is significant on several fronts. First, it raises questions about how states engage contingency-fee firms in mass-tort litigation, particularly regarding conflict disclosures and contract termination rights.
Second, the outcome may influence how much goodwill and leverage outside counsel can bring into public-sector litigations in similar cases.
Third, the case underscores how states manage large-scale litigation of public-health dimensions, such as the opioid crisis, including how they may switch representation when strategic priorities change.
What comes next in the dispute
The dispute appears poised for
litigation or negotiated settlement. Motley Rice must prove that the contract was validly executed, not properly terminated, and that it is entitled to the claimed fees. Alaska must show that a material breach or conflict justified termination and that the firm is not entitled to the fees.
The federal court pause requested by Alaska may provide time for the state to reexplore its representation strategy, but it also gives the firm time to solidify its fee-recovery claim.
Conclusion
The legal conflict between Motley Rice and the State of Alaska over the opioid contract highlights tension at the intersection of public-sector litigation, contingency-fee agreements, and accountability in mass-tort cases. Motley Rice firmly denies any contract breach and is seeking substantial legal fees, while Alaska contends that conflicts and termination were appropriate. The resolution of this dispute may set precedent for future state-hired law-firm arrangements in complex litigation.
Looking to stay ahead in today’s competitive legal market? Visit
LawCrossing to access exclusive legal job openings, industry insights, and career resources tailored for attorneys at every stage.
Explore thousands of opportunities and elevate your legal career today.The post
Motley Rice Seeks Fees in Alaska Opioid Case first appeared on
JDJournal Blog.
