COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF

SANTA CLARACOUNTY

Filed 4/8/08

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

A group of public entities are prosecuting a representative public nuisance action against a group of companies that manufactured lead paint. This action seeks abatement as the sole remedy, and it has not yet proceeded to trial. The companies filed a motion seeking to bar the public entities from compensating their private counsel by means of contingent fees. The superior court, relying on People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740 (Clancy), issued an order barring the public entities from compensating their private counsel by means of any contingent fee agreement. The public entities seek writ relief from the superior courts order. They assert that Clancy does not bar all contingent fee agreements in public nuisance abatement actions, and that their contingent fee agreements are valid. We conclude that Clancy does not bar the public entities contingent fee agreements with their private counsel, and we issue a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order and issue a new order denying the companies motion.

I. Background

The public entities action against the companies originally included causes of action for fraud, strict liability, negligence, unfair business practices, and public nuisance.^[1](County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 300 (Santa Clara I).) In March 2006, this court reversed the superior courts judgment of dismissal and ordered the superior court to reinstate the representative public nuisance cause of action and the negligence, strict liability, and fraud causes of action. (Santa Clara I, at p. 333.) In January 2007, the public entities filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fourth amended complaint that alleged a single representative public nuisance cause of action and sought only abatement. Throughout this litigation, the public entities have been represented by both their in-house counsel and private counsel.

In February 2007, the companies filed a motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private attorneys. They asserted that the government cannot retain a private attorney on a contingent fee basis to litigate a public nuisance claim. The companies sought an order that precludes plaintiffs from retaining outside counsel under any agreement in which payment of fees and costs is contingent on the outcome of the litigation.

The companies attached to their motion a number of fee agreements between the public entities and their private counsel, and the public entities filed opposition to which they attached their fee agreements and declarations from their in-house and private counsel. The fee agreements and declarations disclose that the public entities and private counsel agreed that, other than $150,000 that would be forwarded by Santa Clara toward costs, private counsel would pay all further costs and would not receive any fees unless the action was successful. If the action succeeded, private counsel could seek a court award of costs and would be entitled to recover any unrecompensed costs from the recovery and a fee of 17% of the net recovery.

The fee agreements provide different definitions of recovery. Some of the agreements define recovery as moneys other than civil penalties, while others define recovery as the amount recovered, by way of judgment, settlement, or other resolution. Some of the agreements include both monetary and non-monetary in their definitions of recovery. The San Diego agreement defines net recovery as the payment of money, stock, and/or in the value of the abatement remedy after the deduction of the costs paid or to be paid. The Santa Clara fee agreement provides that, [i]n the event that the Litigation is resolved by settlement under terms involving the provision of goods, services or any other in-kind payment, the Santa Clara County Counsel agrees to seek, as part of any such settlement, a mutually agreeable monetary settlement of attorneys fees and expenses.

In April 2007, the superior court heard both the companies motion to bar payment and the public entities motion for leave to file the fourth amended complaint. The court granted the public entities motion for leave to file the fourth amended complaint and ordered that the pleading be filed within 30 days.

Although there were some preliminary issues about the ripe[ness] of the companies motion, the superior court resolved the motion on its merits.[2] The court rejected the public entities claim that Clancy was distinguishable. The court concluded that, under Clancy, outside counsel must be precluded from operating under a contingent fee agreement, regardless of the government attorneys and outside attorneys well-meaning intentions to have all decisions in this litigation made by the government attorneys. The court granted the companies motion and preclud[ed] Plaintiffs from retaining outside counsel under any agreement in which the payment of fees and costs is contingent on the outcome of the litigation . . . . The court allowed the public entities 30 days to file with the court new fee agreements or declarations detailing the fee arrangements with outside counsel.

The public entities sought a writ of mandate in this court, and the superior court stayed the matter pending resolution of this writ proceeding. This court issued an order to show cause on the writ petition, the companies filed a return, and the public entities filed a reply.[3]

II. Discussion

The public entities claim that the superior court erred in categorically precluding contingent fee agreements. They maintain that Clancy does not categorically bar the retention of private counsel to represent a public entity in a public nuisance abatement action under a contingent fee agreement. The public entities contend that their engagement of private counsel under contingent fee agreements in this action falls outside the scope of Clancys holding.

A. Propriety of Writ Review

In this case, the companies, for whatever reason, did not style their motion as a motion to disqualify the public entities private counsel.[4] While an order disqualifying counsel is an appealable order (Chronometrics, Inc. v. Sysgen, Inc. (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 597, 599, fn.1), the order issued by the superior court granting the companies motion was not appealable because it did not explicitly disqualify the public entities private counsel. Instead, it precluded the public entities from employing their private counsel under any contingent fee arrangements.

It would be naive not to recognize that the motion to disqualify opposing counsel is frequently a tactical device to delay litigation. (Comden v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 906, 915.) In this case, the companies motion threatened not only to deprive the public entities of their choice of counsel but also to preclude them from pursuing any appellate remedies. Writ review of this order is appropriate because appellate review is unavailable, and any error in the order would result in unjustifiably depriving the public entities of their right to counsel of choice.

B. Clancy

We begin with Clancy, since Clancy was the basis for the superior courts ruling. In Clancy, the City of Corona (Corona) had hired James Clancy, a private attorney, to bring nuisance abatement actions against businesses selling obscene publications in violation of a city ordinance. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 743.) The employment contract between Corona and Clancy, who was an independent contractor rather than an employee, provided that Clancy was to be paid $60 per hour for his work in bringing public nuisance actions, but he would be paid only $30 per hour for his work in any public nuisance action in which Corona did not prevail or in which Corona prevailed but did not recover its attorneys fees. (Clancy, at pp. 745, 747.)

Clancy, acting as a special City Attorney, filed a public nuisance complaint against a bookstore and its operator seeking abatement, a declaratory judgment and an injunction. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 744.) The bookstore operator unsuccessfully sought to disqualify Clancy as attorney for Corona. (Ibid.) The bookstore operator then sought writ relief, contending that it was improper for an attorney representing the government to have a financial stake in the outcome of an action to abate a public nuisance and asserting that a government attorney prosecuting such actions must be neutral, as must an attorney prosecuting a criminal case. (Clancy, at p. 745.)

The California Supreme Court recognized that there is a class of civil actions that demands the representative of the government to be absolutely neutral. This requirement precludes the use in such cases of a contingent fee arrangement. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 748.) [A] lawyer cannot escape the heightened ethical requirements of one who performs governmental functions merely by declaring he is not a public official. The responsibility follows the job: if Clancy is performing tasks on behalf of and in the name of the government to which greater standards of neutrality apply, he must adhere to those standards. (Clancy, at p. 747.)

The first question was whether a public nuisance abatement action fell within the class of civil cases in which the governments representative must be absolutely neutral. The court noted that ordinary civil cases brought by the government do not fall within this class of cases, and therefore contingent fee arrangements in ordinary civil cases are permitted.[5] (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 748.) However, public nuisance abatement actions differ from ordinary civil actions brought by the government. [T]he abatement of a public nuisance involves a balancing of interests. On the one hand is the interest of the people in ridding their city of an obnoxious or dangerous condition; on the other hand is the interest of the landowner in using his property as he wishes. And when an establishment such as an adult bookstore is the subject of the abatement action, something more is added to the balance: not only does the landowner have a First Amendment interest in selling protected material, but the public has a First Amendment interest in having such material available for purchase. Thus, as with an eminent domain action [to which the absolute neutrality requirement applies], the abatement of a public nuisance involves a delicate weighing of values. Any financial arrangement that would tempt the government attorney to tip the scale cannot be tolerated. (Clancy, at p. 749.) Since public nuisance abatement actions generally involve a delicate weighing of values and balancing of interests, such actions fall within the class of civil cases in which the governments representative must be absolutely neutral.

The next question was whether the need for the governments representative in a public nuisance abatement action to be absolutely neutral precluded Clancy from prosecuting Coronas public nuisance abatement action against the bookstore operator under the contingent fee arrangement. The court concluded that this contingent fee arrangement precluded Clancy from being absolutely neutral. Clancy has an interest in the result of the case: his hourly rate will double if the City is successful in the litigation. Obviously this arrangement gives him an interest extraneous to his official function in the actions he prosecutes on behalf of the City. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 747-748.) [W]e hold that the contingent fee arrangement between the City and Clancy is antithetical to the standard of neutrality that an attorney representing the government must meet when prosecuting a public nuisance abatement action. In the interests of justice, therefore, we must order Clancy disqualified from representing the City in the pending abatement action. (Clancy, at p. 750.) The court expressly noted that Corona was not precluded from rehiring Clancy to represent it on other terms. (Clancy, at p. 750, fn. 5.)

C. Application of Clancy

As in Clancy, the public entities in this case have engaged the services of private counsel pursuant to contingent fee agreements under which private counsel will participate in representing the interests of the public entities in a public nuisance abatement action. The public entities argue that Clancys absolute neutrality requirement does not apply here because private counsel have not been engaged as the sole representatives of the public entities, as James Clancy was in Clancy, but only to assist the government attorneys who are prosecuting this action on behalf of the public entities. Unlike James Clancy, private counsel do not have decision-making authority and the power to control the litigation, both of which have been retained by the public entities in-house counsel. The public entities claim that the limited and subordinate role of private counsel does not justify applying the absolute neutrality requirement to them.

It is undisputed that private counsel have been engaged to play a limited, subordinate role in this litigation. All of the public entities are represented by in-house counsel in addition to their private counsel. The fee agreements between five of the public entities and their private counsel explicitly provide that the public entities in-house counsel retain final authority over all aspects of the Litigation.[6] Their private counsel submitted declarations confirming that the public entities in-house counsel retain complete control of the litigation.[7] The two remaining fee agreements, those of Oakland and Solano, purport to grant private counsel absolute discretion in the decision of who to sue and who not to sue, if anyone, and what theories to plead and what evidence to present. However, Oakland has disclaimed this fee agreement and asserts that it has retained complete control of this litigation and is revising its fee agreement to so reflect.[8] Solanos private counsel asserts that Solanos in-house counsel has maintained and continue[s] to maintain complete control over all aspects of the litigation and all decision making authority and responsibility. The record before us does not contain any fee agreements between the remaining three public entity petitioners and any private counsel.[9]

The public entities have therefore established that their private counsel serve in a subordinate role in which private counsel merely assist in-house counsel and lack any authority to control the litigation. The only remaining question is whether the limited role of private counsel renders inapplicable Clancys absolute neutrality requirement. While Clancy contains language suggesting that it is establishing a broad rule banning contingent fee agreements with private counsel in public nuisance abatement actions, we are bound by only the holding in Clancy, not all of its language.

We acknowledge, as we must, that we are bound to follow binding precedent of a higher court, and that the refusal to do so is in excess of our own jurisdiction. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455-456 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) However, we are not bound by dicta . . . . In every case, it is necessary to read the language of an opinion in the light of its facts and the issues raised, in order to determine which statements of law were necessary to the decision, and therefore binding precedent, and which were general observations unnecessary to the decision. The latter are dicta, with no force as precedent. (Firemans Fund Ins. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1300-1301.)

It is a foundational principle that: [T]he language of an opinion must be construed with reference to the facts presented by the case, and the positive authority of a decision is coextensive only with such facts. [Citations.] A litigant cannot find shelter under a rule announced in a decision that is inapplicable to a different factual situation in his own case, nor may a decision of a court be rested on quotations from previous opinions that are not pertinent by reason of dissimilarity of facts in the cited cases and in those in the case under consideration. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1157.)

The California Supreme Courts holding in Clancy must be construed with reference to the facts presented in Clancy, and the binding authority of Clancy is limited to the facts upon which the California Supreme Court rested its holding. James Clancy was serving as Coronas sole representative in its public nuisance abatement action and had complete control over the litigation. Clancys holding was based on the rationale that, where private counsel are performing tasks on behalf of and in the name of the government in a public nuisance abatement action in which there must be a balancing of interests, private counsel must be absolutely neutral and cannot be compensated by a contingent fee arrangement, because private counsels financial interest might tip the scale on which these interests are balanced. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 747, 748, 749.)

In contrast, where private counsel are merely assisting government attorneys in the litigation of a public nuisance abatement action and are explicitly serving in a subordinate role, in which private counsel lack any decision-making authority or control, private counsel are not themselves acting in the name of the government and have no role in the balancing of interests that triggers the absolute neutrality requirement. Private counsel serving in such a subordinate role do not supplant the public entities in-house attorneys, who must be absolutely neutral, and are not in a position where their interest in maximizing their contingent fee can influence the balancing of interests or any of the other decisions that are made exclusively by the public entities in-house attorneys. Because Clancys holding is limited to the facts that were before the California Supreme Court in Clancy, a private attorney serving as the sole representative of the government in a public nuisance abatement action and completely controlling the litigation, Clancy does not justify the superior courts order barring the public entities from compensating, by means of a contingent fee agreement, their private counsel, who are merely assisting in-house counsel and lack any control over the litigation.[10]

D. Other Cases

Since Clancy does not support the superior courts order, we must consider whether any other authority does.

None of the other cases cited by the companies provides any support for the superior courts order. In Tumey v. State of Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510 (Tumey), Tumey was arrested for unlawful possession of alcohol and tried by the mayor of the village, who had the power to ascertain guilt and set the amount of the fine. The mayor would be paid $12 out of the fine if Tumey was convicted, but would receive no funds if Tumey was not convicted. (Tumey, at pp. 520, 523, 533.) The United States Supreme Court concluded that it was a violation of due process for the mayor to adjudge Tumeys culpability because the mayor had a pecuniary interest in the outcome. That officers acting in a judicial or quasi judicial capacity are disqualified by their interest in the controversy to be decided is of course the general rule. (Tumey, at p. 521.) [I]t certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case. (Tumey, at p. 523.) It is certainly not fair to each defendant brought before the mayor for the careful and judicial consideration of his guilt or innocence that the prospect of such a prospective loss by the mayor should weigh against his a[c]quittal. (Tumey, at p. 532.) Because Tumey was solely concerned with the financial interest of the adjudicator, it is not relevant to the financial interest of private counsel assisting in the prosecution of a proceeding. Private counsel here are not playing an adjudicative role in the proceedings.

Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio (1972) 409 U.S. 57 (Ward), like Tumey, found a due process violation where a mayor served as the adjudicator. The only difference between Ward and Tumey was that the mayor in Ward did not personally benefit from conviction, but had an interest in conviction because the fines funded the villages budget. In Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. (1980) 446 U.S. 238 (Marshall), the United States Supreme Court concluded that that the strict requirements of Tumey and Ward are not applicable to the determinations of the assistant regional administrator, whose functions resemble those of a prosecutor more closely than those of a judge. (Marshall, at p. 243.) Thus, the strict requirements of Tumey and Ward apply only to adjudicators, not to those who are functioning like prosecutors.

The public entities note that Clancy distinguished Sedelbauer v. State (1983) 455 N.E.2d 1159 (Sedelbauer). In a footnote responding to James Clancys reliance on Sedelbauer, the California Supreme Court briefly noted that Sedelbauer approved the assistance of a private attorney only because he appeared not in place of the States duly authorized counsel. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 749, fn. 3.) In Sedelbauer, the Indiana appellate court found no error in the fact that a private attorney with a private interest in the suppression of pornography had served as cocounsel in a criminal obscenity prosecution and appeared with a deputy prosecuting attorney, and not in place of the States duly authorized counsel. (Sedelbauer, at p. 1164.) We agree with the public entities that Clancys treatment of Sedelbauer suggests that there is a critical distinction between a private attorney who supplants the public entitys duly authorized counsel and a private attorney who serves only in a subordinate role as co-counsel to the public entitys in-house counsel.

Two other cases relied on by the public entities also provide some support for their claim that absolute neutrality is not required of private counsel who are merely assisting in-house counsel and have no control over the litigation.

In Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening (1998) 709 A.2d 1230 (Glendening), the State of Maryland entered into a contingent fee agreement with private counsel to pursue a tort action against tobacco companies. Private counsel would be paid only out of a money judgment, and there was no indication that the action would include a public nuisance abatement cause of action. (Glendening, at pp. 1231-1233.) The tobacco companies sought to invalidate the contingent fee agreement. The Maryland Court of Appeals distinguished Clancy in its ruling validating the agreement. [N]o constitutional or criminal violations [are] directly implicated here, and, hence, there is no potential conflict of interest. Also, and more important, notably absent from Clancy is a legislative enactment authorizing the special employment of outside counsel in extraordinary cases. Equally important, is the absence of the oversight of an elected State official, who shall have the authority to control all aspects of [outside counsels] handling of the litigation, and whose authority shall be final, sole and unreviewable. [Citation.] These, we believe, are significant material distinctions which permit a finding that the instant contingency fee contract is not violative of due process or public policy. (Glendening, at pp. 1242-1243.) Although Glendening was not a public nuisance abatement action, the fact that it distinguished Clancy in part on the ground that control would be exercised by the state rather than by private counsel supports our conclusion that absolute neutrality is not required of private counsel here.

In City and County of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1997) 957 F.Supp. 1130 (CCSF), tobacco company defendants, relying on Clancy, sought to disqualify the private attorneys hired by the public entity plaintiffs to assist in the prosecution of a lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged a variety of causes of action, but it did not include any public nuisance abatement cause of action. (CCSF, at pp. 1134-1135.) The federal district court distinguished Clancy and refused to disqualify the private attorneys. (CCSF, at pp. 1135-1136.) [The private attorneys are] acting here as co-counsel, with plaintiffs respective government attorneys retaining full control over the course of the litigation. Because plaintiffs public counsel are actually directing this litigation, the Court finds that the concerns expressed in Clancy regarding overzealousness on the part of private counsel have been adequately addressed . . . . [] The Court also finds that the civil tort nature of this action meaningfully distinguishes it from Clancy. This lawsuit, which is basically a fraud action, does not raise concerns analogous to those in the public nuisance or eminent domain contexts discussed in Clancy. Plaintiffs role in this suit is that of a tort victim, rather than a sovereign seeking to vindicate the rights of its residents or exercising governmental powers. [] Finally, the case as it stands now will not require the private attorneys to argue about the policy choices or value judgments suggested by defendants regarding the regulation of tobacco. Rather, plaintiffs attorneys simply will be arguing, as they likely have in many other cases for private sector clients, that a tort has been committed against their clients. (CCSF, at p. 1135.)

While the litigation in CCSF was not a public nuisance abatement action, and the court distinguished Clancy on that ground, the court also distinguished Clancy on the ground that the private attorneys would not be controlling the litigation, which would be controlled by the public entities in-house counsel. Thus, CCSF too provides some support for our conclusion that absolute neutrality is not required where private counsel serve in a subordinate role and lack any control over the litigation.

E. Conclusion

Clancy itself does not bar the public entities from engaging private counsel under a contingent fee arrangement to assist in this litigation, so long as the public entities in‑house counsel retain control over all decision-making. The record before us contains absolutely no evidence that private counsel have ever engaged in any conduct that invaded the sphere of control exercised by the public entities in-house counsel.[11] No authority supports barring private counsel from assisting the public entities under a contingent fee arrangement in this litigation. Therefore, the superior courts order is unjustified, and we will direct the court to set it aside.

III. Disposition

Let a writ of mandate issue commanding the superior court to set aside its order granting the companies motion and to enter a new order denying the motion. The public entities shall recover their costs.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

I CONCUR:

_____________________________

McAdams, J.

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J., CONCURRING

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion that the California Supreme Courts decision in People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 740 (Clancy) does not bar the public entity plaintiffs in this case from retaining private counsel under their current contingency fee agreements to assist the government attorneys in the litigation of this public nuisance abatement action. I write separately to express my view that the determination of whether a contingency fee agreement between a public entity and private counsel is barred in a public nuisance abatement action is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Our Supreme Court has instructed that prosecutorial neutrality is required in a public entitys prosecution of a public nuisance abatement action. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp. 748-749.) To ensure that a contingency fee agreement is not antithetical to the standard of neutrality that an attorney representing the government must meet when prosecuting a public nuisance abatement action (id. at p. 750), I believe the court must review the factual circumstances of each case to determine whether, as a result of the contingency fee agreement, the prosecutors discretionary decisionmaking has been placed within the influence or control of an interested party (Hambarian v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 826, 841 (Hambarian)) or is subject to conflicting personal interests (People v. Superior Court (Greer) (1977) 19 Cal.3d 255, 267).

As I will explain, my conclusion that a case-by-case factual determination is required derives from a careful review of the decision in Clancy and other decisions of the California Supreme Court, as well as decisions of the federal and state courts. I have also carefully considered the important public policy issues addressed in Clancy and in the helpful briefs of the parties and the amicus curiae.[12]

I also write separately to recognize the courts inherent power to review contingency fee agreements (Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 920, 933), which will allow the trial court to oversee the propriety of the contingency fee agreements in this case throughout the course of the litigation.

Story Continue As Part II ..

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] The petitioners in this case are Santa Clara County (Santa Clara), San Mateo County (San Mateo), Monterey County (Monterey), Solano County (Solano), Los Angeles County (LA County), Alameda County (Alameda), City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco), City of Oakland (Oakland), City of Los Angeles (LA City), and City of San Diego (San Diego).

[2] At the hearing, the superior court noted that it was somewhat puzzled as to what a contingent fee would be based upon if youre not permitted to [re]cover damages . . . . The court noted that attorneys fees were not available in this type of public nuisance abatement action. The fact that . . . you may not recover damages for a public nuisance that may be abated seems to me would eliminate the the necessity of having the value of having a contingent fee agreement with counsel . . . .

The public entities asserted that the motion was not ripe because it could not be predicted what type of remedy or fees would be available. Private counsel for the public entities asserted that [i]f there is no recovery in this case from any monetary funds, the people who are going to suffer here are the folks who are assisting county counsel. We believe at this time since we have not had the benefit of analyzing what the remedies are going to be for this type of abatement we cant forecast that. The risk truly is on private counsel. We may never see a nickel from the case.

The attorney for the companies admitted that, [o]n the question of non ripeness, he was confused about the common fund issue and where a contingency might come from. Now if the plaintiffs ultimately figure out a way to have a pot of money against which a seventeen percent contingency could apply, the contingency fee would be a vast[] amount of money.

[3] Numerous amicus curiae briefs have also been filed in this proceeding.

[4] The attorney for the companies asserted at the hearing on the motion that the companies do not ask for disqualification but only that the paying of contingency fees be barred.

[5] Nothing we say herein should be construed as preventing the government, under appropriate circumstances, from engaging private counsel. Certainly there are cases in which a government may hire an attorney on a contingent fee to try a[n ordinary] civil case. (Clancy, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 748.)

[6] Four of the public entities submitted declarations to the effect that they had retained and continue[d] to retain complete control of the litigation, were actively involved in and direct[ed] all decisions related to the litigation, and have direct oversight over the work of outside counsel. San Francisco declared that [t]he San Francisco City Attorneys Office has in fact retained control over all significant decisions in this case.

[7] Private counsel Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy (Cotchett) submitted a declaration in which it stated that it had been retained by Santa Clara, Solano, Alameda, Oakland, Monterey, San Mateo, and San Diego. Cotchett asserted that the public entities in-house counsel have maintained and continue to maintain complete control over all aspects of the litigation and all decision making authority and responsibility. Private counsel Thornton & Naumes, private counsel Motley, Rice, and private counsel Mary E. Alexander submitted declarations asserting that they had been retained by San Francisco to assist in this litigation. They asserted that San Franciscos City Attorney has retained complete control over this litigation and has exercised full decision-making authority and responsibility.

[8] Oakland submitted a declaration by a city attorney that: Notwithstanding any documents suggesting the contrary, the Office of the City Attorney has retained complete control over the prosecution of the public nuisance cause of action in this case as it relates to the interests of the People of the City of Oakland. Oakland asserted that it was in the process of revising its fee agreement so that it reflects the reality of the relationship between Oakland and its private counsel.

[9] Seven separate fee agreements between the various public entity petitioners and their private counsel were before the superior court and are before us. These fee agreements are between private counsel and Santa Clara, Monterey, San Francisco, Solano, Oakland, Alameda, and San Diego.

No fee agreements are before us involving LA City, LA County or San Mateo. LA City submitted a declaration below stating that it has not yet joined the litigation and has not retained private counsel, although it anticipates joining the litigation and needing the services of private counsel.

San Mateo did not submit a fee agreement, but it submitted a declaration by its in-house counsel in which in-house counsel asserted that it has retained and continues to retain complete control of the litigation and retains final authority over all aspects of the litigation. The declaration stated that a fee agreement was attached, but no such attachment appears in petitioners appendix of exhibits. However, Cotchetts declaration confirmed that it had been retained by San Mateo and that San Mateo retained complete control over all aspects of the litigation and all decision making authority and responsibility.

Nothing in the record before us indicates that LA County has retained private counsel to represent it in this litigation or contemplates doing so.

[10] The concurring opinion posits that it is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis whether private counsel may assist in the representation of a public entity under a contingent fee agreement in a public nuisance case. This case is not an appropriate vehicle for us to opine on the precise nature of the decision that a superior court would be required to make in a case in which there were factual disputes regarding the nature of the fee agreement or the relationship between private counsel and a public entity.

The issue before us in this writ proceeding was presented to the superior court on undisputed facts and was resolved by the court as a pure question of law. Although it was undisputed that private counsel were engaged solely to assist in-house counsel in representing the public entities, with in-house counsel retaining complete control over the litigation, the superior court, relying solely on Clancy, ruled that contingent fee agreements between public entities and private counsel were categorically barred in public nuisance cases.

Because the superior court resolved the sole issue presented in this writ proceeding as a matter of law, and it is presented to us as a matter of law, this case does not present the issue that the concurring opinion purports to resolve. Whether, in a case in which there are disputed facts, a superior court primarily makes a factual determination or primarily exercises its discretion in deciding whether to permit private counsel to represent a public entity under a contingent fee agreement in a public nuisance action is a question not presented in this case. Resolution of that question must await a case in which it is presented and would necessarily require resolution of the appropriate standard of review for this court to exercise in such a case. As these issues are not before us here, we express no opinion on them.

[11] No doubt the companies will seek disqualification of the public entities private attorneys if they acquire evidence that the private attorneys are improperly exercising control over this action.

[12] Amicus briefs were filed by the American Chemistry Council; the Association of California Water Agencies; the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the American Tort Reform Association (joint brief); the Civil Justice Association of California; the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities (joint brief); and Public Justice, P.C., Healthy Children Organizing Project; and the Western Center for Law and Poverty (joint brief).