SANTA CLARA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA











Filed 7/26/10













IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA







COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., )

)

Petitioners, )

) S163681

v. )

) Ct.App. 6

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA ) No. H031540

CLARA COUNTY, )

) Santa Clara County

Respondent; ) Super. Ct. No. CV 788657

)

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY )

et al., )

)

Real Parties in Interest. )

__________________________ )



A group of public entities
composed of various California counties and cities (collectively referred to as
the public entities) are prosecuting a public-nuisance
action against numerous businesses that manufactured lead paint
(collectively referred to as defendants).
The public entities are represented both by their own government
attorneys and by several private law firms.
The private law firms are retained by the public entities on a
contingent-fee basis. After summary
judgment was granted in favor of defendants on various tort causes of action
initially advanced by the public entities, the complaint eventually was amended
to leave the public-nuisance action as the sole claim, and abatement as the
sole remedy.

Defendants moved to bar the public entities from
compensating their privately retained counsel by means of contingent fees. The superior court, relying upon this court's
decision in People ex rel. Clancy v.
Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740 (Clancy),
ordered the public entities barred from compensating their private counsel by
means of any contingent-fee agreement, reasoning that under >Clancy, all attorneys prosecuting
public-nuisance actions must be â€