8 Retention of Private Counsel by attorneys general: March 7, 2022 8 Retention of Private Counsel by attorneys general: March 7, 2022
All attorneys general utilize private counsel to represent the state's interest. In most cases it is because the matter is highly routinized (collecting bills for the state), highly specialized (bond counsel) or non repeating specialites (copyright or state owned patents). They are also used to provide legal services to remote geographic areas (rural state institutions) far from the State Capitol and for deep conflicts where outside retention is the only ethical answer.
The manner of selection of these outside counsel varies with the issue and the state. Quite often an assistant attorney general from the civil division will be allowed to keep his or her agency “client” for a period of time upon leaving the office In other instances law firms have such deep relations with the agency who is “paying” for the services that the attorney general accedes to the agency request to utilize the firm.
CONTINGENT COUNSEL
This Chapter primarily deals with retention of private counsel an attorney general in a very different setting, e.g. contingent counsel on national cases. This practice broke into the national legal scene in the 1990's in the Tobacco Cases (see Chapter on Tobacco Cases.) These cases generated an enormous settlement and legal fees of over $1 Billion. The controversial practice has continued with some states never using contingent counsel and some using them as a matter of course.
The ability of attorneys general to retain and control contingent counsel has been the subject of significant litigation and controversy as indicated in the readings of this Chapter. There have been litigation efforts and legislative initiatives by impacted industries designed to eliminate or limit the ability of attorneys general to retain contingent counsel. While these efforts have been generally unnsucessful they did generate a number of applellate decisions, state laws and academic articles that have limited the unfettered authority of attorneys general regarding the retention and supervision of contingent counsel with a clear increase in the transparency of the practice.
8.1 RI State v. Lead Industries Ass'n , 951 A.2d 428, (2008) 8.1 RI State v. Lead Industries Ass'n , 951 A.2d 428, (2008)
The Rhode Island Supreme Court decision in State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc. is the majority rule. on the ability of state attorneys general to retain contingent counsel as long as the attorney general exercises sufficient control over the counsel so that the litigation does not lose its governmental status.
State v. Lead Industries Ass'n
951 A.2d 428
Nos. 2004-63-M.P., 2006-158-Appeal, 2007-121-Appeal
2008-07-01
Neil Kelly, John McConnell, Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Genevieve Allaire-Johnson, James Lee, Providence, for Plaintiff.
John A. MacFadyen, III, Donald Scott, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph Cavanagh, Laura Ellsworth, Pro Hac Vice, Paul M. Pohl, Pro Hac Vice, Thomas Bender, William Kayatta, Pro Hac Vice, John Tarantino, for Defendants.
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.
OPINION
Addressing the issues seriatim for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Williams authored Tracks I and II and Associate Justices Suttell, Flaherty, and Robinson authored Tracks III, IV, and V, respectively. In this landmark lawsuit, filed in 1999, the then Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Rhode Island (the state), filed suit against various former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association (LIA), a national trade association of lead producers formed in 1928.
After the first trial resulted in a mistrial, a second trial commenced; that second trial, spanning four months, became the longest civil jury trial in the state’s history.1 This monumental lawsuit2 marked the first time in the United States that a trial resulted in a verdict that imposed liability on lead pigment manufacturers for creating a public nuisance.
IV
The Propriety of Contingent Fee Arrangements
Although we are keenly aware of the gravity of the issue and of the fact that thoughtful and potent policy-based arguments have been made on both sides of the issue, in the end we have concluded that, in principle, there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal or inappropriate in a contractual relationship whereby the Attorney General hires outside attorneys on a contingent fee basis to assist in the litigation of certain non-criminal48 matters. Indeed, it is our view that the ability of the Attorney General to enter into such contractual relationships may well, in some circumstances, lead to results that will be beneficial to society — results which otherwise might not have been attainable.49 However, due to the special duty of attorneys general to “seek justice” and their wide discretion with respect to same, such contractual relationships must be accompanied by exacting limitations. In short, it is our view that the Attorney General is not precluded from engaging private counsel pursuant to a contingent fee agreement in order to assist in certain civil litigation, so long as the Office of Attorney General retains absolute and total control over all critical decision-making in any case in which such agreements have been entered into.50 See, e.g., County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.4th 1140, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 842, 850 (2008). In our view, it is imperative that the case-management authority of the Attorney General, where a contingent fee agreement is involved, be “final, sole and unreviewable.” Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening, 349 Md. 660, 709 A.2d 1230, 1243 (1998).51
As we have sought to explain in some detail earlier in this opinion, attorneys general are charged with the special duty to seek justice — a duty which is quite different from the responsibilities of the usual advocate. In accordance with that principle, we wholeheartedly agree with Chief Judge Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia when he wrote in almost perfervid language:
“Government lawyers * * * should also refrain from continuing litigation that is obviously pointless, that could easily be resolved, and that wastes Court time and taxpayer money. * * * [A] government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission.” Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co., 962 F.2d at 47, 48.
The usual advocate, on the other hand, is not held to quite such an abnegatory and demanding standard. Accordingly, in order to ensure that a contingent fee agreement is not adverse to the standards that an attorney representing the government must meet, it is vital that the Office of the Attorney General have absolute control over the course of any litigation originating in that office.
At the risk of being repetitive, we would emphasize that the Attorney General’s discretionary decision-making must not be delegated to the control of outside counsel; rather, it is the outside counsel who must serve in a subordinate role. See United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 192 (5th Cir.1965) (“[The Attorney General] is the representative of the public in whom is lodged a discretion which is not to be controlled by * * * an interested individual, or by a group of interested individuals * * *.”); People v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 19 Cal.3d 255, 137 Cal.Rptr. 476, 561 P.2d 1164, 1172 (1977) (“[The] advantage of public prosecution is lost if those exercising the discretionary duties of the [Attorney General] are subject to conflicting personal interests which might tend to compromise their impartiality.”); see also County of Santa Clara, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d at 850 (holding that the duty of government attorneys to seek justice is not contravened when private counsel, retained on a contingent fee basis, “are merely assisting * * * in the litigation* * * and are explicitly serving in a subordinate role * *
In order to ensure that meaningful decision-making power remains in the hands of the Attorney General, it is our view that, at a bare minimum, the following limitations should be expressly set forth in any contingent fee agreement between that office and private counsel: (1) that the Office of the Attorney General will retain complete control over the course and conduct of the case; (2) that, in a similar vein, the Office of the Attorney General retains a veto power over any decisions made by outside counsel; and (3) that a senior member of the Attorney General’s staff must be personally involved in all stages of the litigation.52
Moreover, not only must the Attorney General have absolute control over all stages of the litigation, but he or she must also appear to the citizenry of Rhode Island and to the world at large to be exercising such control. See Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954) (“[JJustice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”); see also Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 806, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987); Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238, 242, 243, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980); Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 137 Cal.Rptr. 476, 561 P.2d at 1172 (“[I]t is precisely because the prosecutor enjoys such broad discretion that the public he serves and those he accuses may justifiably demand that he perform his functions with the highest degree of integrity and impartiality, and with the appearance thereof.”)(emphasis added).
V
8.2. American Legislative Exchange Council, Private Attorney General Retention Sunshine Act
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a national conservative think tank that engages in advocacy in state legislatures. ALEX has proposed model legislation that limits the unfettered ability of attorneys general to retain contingent counsel.
American Legislative Exchange Council, Private Attorney General Retention Sunshine Act(Links to an external site.)
- Approved by ALEC Board of Directors on September 1998.
- Amended by ALEC Board of Directors in 2005.
- Reapproved by ALEC Board of Directors on January 28, 2013.
- Reapproved by ALEC Board of Directors on September 18, 2018.
Links:
8.3. "It's the 90's, Counselor: 'Superfluous' Fees Denied" David Margolick, New York Times, Aug. 14, 1992
New York Times, Aug. 14, 1992
8.4. New Mexico Attorney General [Hector Balderas] unveils changes on hiring private lawyers, KOB Eyewitness News 4, March 30, 2015
Attorney general unveils changes on hiring private lawyers
Posted at: 03/30/2015 8:07 AM Updated at: 03/30/2015 9:13 PM
By: Ryan Luby, KOB Eyewitness News 4
New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas wants to curtail questions of influence involving private lawyers who want to benefit from a private-public partnership.
Balderas announced new reforms on hiring private lawyers to file lawsuits on behalf of the Attorney General's Office.
Under Balderas's new process, which resulted from an internal office-wide review, he'll decide on the merits of a possible case involving outside counsel himself. If he chooses to pursue it, his office will determine if it's cost-effective. Then, his office would require attorneys to competitively bid to get involved.
"I only want to pursue cases that protect taxpayers, where we're able to secure adequate recovery for the state of New Mexico," he said.
The move comes after a New York Times story in December that showed how more attorney generals were hiring private law firms to file lawsuits. The story, which featured former New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, reported that private lawyers search public records for potential cases then approach attorneys general.
State officials hire the firms to do the necessary legwork, and in return, the firms get a percentage of any money won in court cases.
"If there's not a strong process of internal controls and a competitive bidding process that's transparent, any elected official then could be subject to undue influence," Balderas said.
According to staff, the New Mexico Attorney General's office has eight contracts with outside counsel at the moment.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Ryan Luby, Attorney general [Hector Balderas] unveils changes on hiring private lawyers, KOB Eyewitness News 4, March 30, 2015 (Links to an external site.)
8.5. West Virginia Office of the Attorney General: Procedures for Retaining Outside Counsel
8.6. NC Attorney General brings in national law firm for PFAS investigation, X, Chemours, Posted August 12, 2020
WRAL.com
Aug. 12, 2020
8.7. "SC Gov MacMaster Objects to Plutonium Settlement and $75 million legal fees," Charlotte Observer, (August 31, 2020)
Charlotte Observer, August 31, 2020
- Original: https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article245377595.html
- Archival link not available.
8.8. "As State AG's Rush Into Policy Battles, Big Law Follows," American Lawyer (October 22, 2020)
American Lawyer - October 22, 2020
8.9. DeSantis taps D.C. law firm billing $725 an hour to defend culture war laws, Orlando Sentinel, Jun 17, 2022
8.10 Multistate Case Hypothethical, Prof. Peter Brann 8.10 Multistate Case Hypothethical, Prof. Peter Brann
Nathan Levenson, a prominent class action plaintiff’s lawyer (and former Assistant Attorney General) located in the State of Connecticut, is poised to bring a private lawsuit against Cote’s Electronics, a prominent bricks and mortar retailer located in the State of Ohio that has recently expanded to become one of the nation’s largest Internet retailers. Although Cote’s claims in the terms and conditions on its website to respect its customers’ privacy, it actually has been selling customers’ personal information to third party marketers. Several Internet blogs had speculated that Cote’s was selling consumer information. The Chief of the Consumer Division of the State of New Hampshire, Cathy McFadden, knows that the speculation was well founded. Her two-person consumer division had served a confidential civil investigative demand (“CID”) seeking documents from Cote’s, and in response had not only received documents suggesting that it had sold information concerning its customers across the country, but obtained an internal email in which a Cote’s VP hoped “to turn bytes into billions.” Unfortunately, McFadden doesn’t have sufficient resources to review all of Cote’s documents, and can’t afford to hire anyone to do so. Also, her two-person consumer division rarely tries cases, and Cote’s lawyer responding to the CID, Mike Kendall, is an aggressive defense lawyer from a large Massachusetts law firm.
· Should New Hampshire bring this case, partner with a private law firm, or refer it to a private law firm?
· Is this a good case for a multistate investigation or lawsuit?
· If other States are contacted, should all States be contacted, and if not, how should the decision be made which States to contact?
Assume that someone made the decision to turn this into a multistate investigation. One of the States that agreed to participate was the State of Connecticut, which wasn’t that surprising because the Chief of the Consumer Division, Jackie Glenn, frequently worked on multistate consumer cases and often served on the “Executive Committees” running such cases. Her former colleague, Sam Levenson, knew that Glenn was likely to be in the thick of things if there was a multistate investigation.
· When Levenson calls Glenn, and asks if there is a multistate investigation, what does Glenn say?
· When Levenson tells Glenn that he knows the States lack the resources to pursue this case against a multibillion dollar retailer like Cote’s, and he would like to work with the States “collaboratively,” what does Glenn say?
· Does Glenn attempt to get any information from her former colleague about his possible class action lawsuit?
· Should or must Glenn tell the other States about this call from Levenson?
The State of Ohio, where Cote’s is located, also volunteered to be on the Executive Committee. In prior calls, Joe Novick, Ohio’s longtime Assistant Attorney General handling consumer issues—who the other States’ lawyers know and trust from years of working together—represented Ohio. On the most recent conference call, Ohio’s new Chief Deputy Attorney General, Sally Grover, also participated and said that she hoped “this investigation would not turn into a witch-hunt against one of Ohio’s most prominent companies.” ·
· Do any of the other States have a problem with Grover participating in the strategy call?
· What, if anything, should the other States do concerning Grover or Ohio?
The State of Arizona also volunteered to be on the Executive Committee. This was interesting because the Attorney General of Arizona, Bob Bone, is very conservative and Arizona had not shown much interest in prior consumer cases. On the other hand, Arizona might simply be looking for additional “investigative costs” and attorneys’ fees that it would receive as a member of the Executive Committee. For whatever reason, Arizona’s consumer protection chief, Joan Emerson, ends up on the Executive Committee. Emerson receives a call from Jerry Hannigan, the former Attorney General of Arizona, i.e., Emerson’s former boss. Hannigan says that he is representing Cote’s, and that the word on the street is that Arizona is investigating Cote’s. He wants to know if it is true Arizona and others are “persecuting” his client, and, if so, he would like a meeting with Emerson and Bone, who he plans on calling next.
· Does Emerson acknowledge the investigation to Hannigan?
· Does Emerson and/or Bone agree to the requested meeting with Hannigan?
· Should or must Emerson tell the other States about the call and requested meeting with Hannigan?
Assume that Emerson and Bone meet with Hannigan. Because former Attorney General Hannigan is more of a politician than a litigator, he brings Cote’s lead lawyer, Mike Kendall, to the meeting. Kendall explains that the multistate approach is seriously misguided because most States don’t have statutes that apply to privacy issues, specifically including the lead State, New Hampshire. Kendall also says that the lead lawyer for New Hampshire, Cathy McFadden, has a personal vendetta against Cote’s because she had bought a Nest “smart” thermostat that wouldn’t work in her 18th century farmhouse and Cote’s refused to take it back and refund her money. At this point, Hannigan spoke up, and mentioned that if the States cracked down on Cote’s, they might just move their operation off-shore to avoid “intrusive regulation” and that Cote’s was troubled by “activist” Attorneys General which drive businesses “to China.” Kendall returns the discussion to the law and asks Bone and Emerson for guidance on a “safe harbor” approach to these unsettled privacy issues.
· Does the argument that the States lack privacy statutes resonate with Emerson or Bone?
· Do Emerson or Bone have any concerns that McFadden may have a personal issue with Cote’s?
· Does the argument that Cote’s may send its business overseas resonate with Emerson or Bone?
· Do Emerson or Bone provide any guidance on a “safe harbor” to Cote’s counsel?
· Should or must Emerson tell the other States about the meeting with Cote’s counsel?
8.11 Supplemental Readings 8.11 Supplemental Readings
8.11.1. Eric Lipton, Lobbyists, Bearing Gifts, Pursue Attorneys General, New York Times (Oct. 28, 2014)
supplemental reading
Contingent fee law firms are major contributors to the campaigns of attorneys general in both political parties as made clear in this article by New York Times reporter Eric Lipton. In 2015, Lipton was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for his series that showed "how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected."
New York Times (Oct. 28, 2014)
- Original: http://nyti.ms/1zGLvW3
- Archival: https://perma.cc/5J3K-2UUP
POLITICS | COURTING FAVOR: 'THE PEOPLE'S LAWYERS' | NYT NOW
Lobbyists, Bearing Gifts, Pursue Attorneys General
By ERIC LIPTON OCT. 28, 2014
When the executives who distribute 5-Hour Energy, the popular caffeinated drinks, learned that attorneys general in more than 30 states were investigating allegations of deceptive advertising — a serious financial threat to the company — they moved quickly to shut the investigations down, one state at a time.
But success did not come in court or at a negotiating table. Instead, it came at the opulent Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel in
California, with its panoramic ocean views, where more than a dozen state attorneys general had gathered last year for cocktails, dinners and fund- raisers organized by the Democratic Attorneys General Association. A lawyer for 5-Hour Energy roamed the event, setting her sights on Attorney General Chris Koster of Missouri, whose office was one of those investigating the company.
“My client just received notification that Missouri is on this,” the lawyer, Lori Kalani, told him.
Ms. Kalani’s firm, Dickstein Shapiro, had courted the attorney general at dinners and conferences and with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Mr. Koster told Ms. Kalani that he was unaware of the investigation, and he reached for his phone and called his office. By the end of the weekend, he had ordered his staff to pull out of the inquiry, a clear victory for 5-Hour Energy.
The quick reversal, confirmed by Mr. Koster and Ms. Kalani, was part of a pattern of successful lobbying of Mr. Koster by the law firm on behalf of clients like Pfizer and AT&T — and evidence of a largely hidden dynamic at work in state attorneys general offices across the country.
Attorneys general are now the object of aggressive pursuit by lobbyists and lawyers who use campaign contributions, personal appeals at lavish corporate-sponsored conferences and other means to push them to drop investigations, change policies, negotiate favorable settlements or pressure federal regulators, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
A robust industry of lobbyists and lawyers has blossomed as attorneys general have joined to conduct multistate investigations and pushed into areas as diverse as securities fraud and Internet crimes.
But unlike the lobbying rules covering other elected officials, there are few revolving-door restrictions or disclosure requirements governing state attorneys general, who serve as “the people’s lawyers” by protecting consumers and individual citizens.
A result is that the routine lobbying and deal-making occur largely out of view. But the extent of the cause and effect is laid bare in The Times’s review of more than 6,000 emails obtained through open records laws in more than two dozen states, interviews with dozens of participants in cases and attendance at several conferences where corporate representatives had easy access to attorneys general.
Often, the corporate representative is a former colleague. Four months after leaving office as chief deputy attorney general in Washington State, Brian T. Moran wrote to his replacement on behalf of a client, T-Mobile, which was pressing federal officials to prevent competitors from grabbing too much of the available wireless spectrum.
“As promised when we met the A.G. last week, I am attaching a draft letter for Bob to consider circulating to the other states,” he wrote late last year, referring to the attorney general, Bob Ferguson.
A short while later, Mr. Moran wrote again to his replacement, David Horn. “Dave: Anything you can tell me about that letter?” he said.
“Working on it sir,” came the answer. “Stay tuned.” By January, the letter was issued by the attorney general largely as drafted by the industry lawyers.
The exchange was not unusual. Emails obtained from more than 20 states reveal a level of lobbying by representatives of private interests that had been more typical with lawmakers than with attorneys general.
“The current and increasing level of the lobbying of attorneys general creates, at the minimum, the appearance of undue influence, and is therefore unseemly,” said James E. Tierney, a former attorney general of Maine, who now runs a program at Columbia University that studies state attorneys general. “It is undermining the credibility of the office of attorney general.”
Private lawyers also have written drafts of legal filings that attorneys general have used almost verbatim. In some cases, they have become an adjunct to the office by providing much of the legal work, including bearing the cost of litigation, in exchange for up to 20 percent of any settlement.
Money gathered through events like the one in February 2013 at the Loews hotel is flooding the political campaigns of attorneys general and flowing to party organizations that can take unlimited corporate contributions and then funnel money to individual candidates. The Republican Attorneys General Association alone has pulled in $11.7 million since January.
It is a self-perpetuating network that includes a group of former attorneys general called SAGE, or the Society of Attorneys General Emeritus, most of whom are now on retainer to corporate clients.
Giant energy producers and service companies like Devon Energy of Oklahoma, the Southern Company of Georgia and TransCanada have retained their own teams of attorney general specialists, including Andrew
P. Miller, a former attorney general of Virginia.
For some companies, the reward seems apparent, according to the documents obtained by The Times. In Georgia, the attorney general, after receiving a request from a former attorney general who had become a
lobbyist, disregarded written advice from the state’s environmental regulators, the emails show. In Utah, the attorney general dismissed a case pending against Bank of America over the objections of his staff after secretly meeting with a former attorney general working as a Bank of America lobbyist.
That Bank of America case was cited in July when the two most recent former attorneys general in Utah were charged with granting official favors to donors in exchange for golf getaways, rides on private planes and a luxury houseboat.
While the Utah case is extreme, some participants say even the daily lobbying can corrode public trust.
“An attorney general is entrusted with the power to decide which lawsuits to file and how to settle them, and they have great discretion in their work,” said Anthony Johnstone, a former assistant attorney general in Montana. “It’s vitally important that people can trust that those judgments are not subject to undue influence because of outside forces. And from what I have seen in recent years, I am concerned and troubled that those forces have intensified.”
Several current and former attorneys general say that while they are disappointed by the increased lobbying, they reject the notion that the outside representatives are powerful enough to manipulate the system.
“There is no Mr. Fix-It out there you can hire and get the job done no matter what the merits are,” said Attorney General Tom Miller of Iowa, the longest-serving state attorney general in the country, at 19 years.
Mr. Koster said he regretted the prominence of groups like DAGA and RAGA — as the Democratic and Republican attorneys general associations are known — saying the partisanship and increased emphasis on money had been damaging.
“I wish those two organizations did not exist,” Mr. Koster said during an interview at his office in Kansas City, even though the Democratic group has contributed at least $1.4 million to his election campaigns, more than any other source.
But he rejected any suggestion that his office had taken actions as a result of the lobbying, instead blaming mistakes made by his staff for moves that ended up benefiting Dickstein’s clients.
Some companies have come grudgingly to the influence game.
Executives from the company that distributes 5-Hour Energy, for example, have contributed more than $280,000 through related corporate entities in the last two years to political funds of attorneys general.
Company executives wrote those checks after the investigation into false claims and deceptive marketing, which initially involved 33 states, opened in January 2013. Requests started to come in for contributions, including a phone call this year directly from Mr. Ferguson of Washington State, whose staff was involved in the inquiry.
In a statement after the company was sued by three states in July, the company strongly denied the allegations and compared being solicited for contributions to being pressured to pay “ransom.” It asked, “Is it appropriate for an attorney general to ask for money from a company they plan to sue?”
A spokesman for Mr. Ferguson first called the allegation baseless. But after being shown a copy of an invitation to a fund-raising event that Mr. Ferguson held in May during a DAGA conference — where 5-Hour Energy was listed as a sponsor — his spokesman confirmed that Mr. Ferguson had made a personal appeal to the company.
Secluded Access
Breakfast was served on a patio overlooking the Pacific Ocean — a buffet of fresh baked goods, made-to-order eggs, lox and fruit — as the Republican attorneys general, in T-shirts and shorts, assembled at Beach Village at the Del, in Coronado, Calif.
These top law enforcement officials from Alabama, South Carolina, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana and other states were joined by Ms. Kalani, of Dickstein Shapiro, and representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pfizer, Comcast and Altria, among other corporate giants.
The group had gathered at the exclusive Beach Village at the Del —
where rooms go for as much as $4,500 a night and a special key card is required to enter the private compound — for the most elite event for Republican attorneys general, a gathering of the Edmund Randolph Club (named for the first United States attorney general).
The club, created by the Republican Attorneys General Association, has a $125,000 entry fee — money used to fund the campaigns of attorney general candidates with as much as $1 million, and to pay for the hotel bills, airfare and meals for the attorneys general who attend the events.
As at the Democrats’ event, the agenda included panels to discuss emerging legal issues. But at least as important was the opportunity for the lobbyists, corporate executives and lawyers to nurture relationships with the attorneys general — and to lobby them in this casual and secluded setting. (A reporter from The Times attended this event uninvited and, once spotted, was asked to leave.)
The appeals began the moment the law enforcement officials arrived, as gift bags were handed out, including boxes of 5-Hour Energy, wine from a liquor wholesalers group and music CDs (Roy Orbison for the adults, the heartthrob Hunter Hayes for their children) from the recording industry.
Andy Abboud, a lobbyist for Las Vegas Sands, which donated $500,000 through its chief executive to the Republican group this year, has been urging attorneys general to join an effort to ban online poker. At breakfast, he approached Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida.
“What are you going to be doing today?” he asked. “Sailing,” Ms. Bondi replied.
“Great, I want to go sailing, too,” Mr. Abboud said, and they agreed to connect later that day.
The increased focus on state attorneys general by corporate interests has a simple explanation: to guard against legal exposure, potentially in the billions of dollars, for corporations that become targets of the state investigations.
It can be traced back two decades, when more than 40 state attorneys general joined to challenge the tobacco industry, an inquiry that resulted in
a historic $206 billion settlement.
Microsoft became the target of a similar multistate attack, accused of engaging in an anticompetitive scheme by bundling its Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system. Then came the pharmaceutical industry, accused of improperly marketing drugs, and, more recently, the financial services industry, in a case that resulted in a $25 billion settlement in 2012 with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicing companies.
The trend accelerated as attorneys general — particularly Democrats — began hiring outside law firms to conduct investigations and sue corporations on a contingency basis.
The widening scope of their investigations led companies to significantly bolster efforts to influence their actions. John W. Suthers, who has served as Colorado’s attorney general for a decade, said he was not surprised by this campaign.
“I don’t fault for one second that corporate America is pushing back on what has happened,” Mr. Suthers said. “Attorneys general can do more damage in a heartbeat than legislative bodies can. I think it is a matter of self-defense, and I understand it pretty well, although I have got to admit as an old-time prosecutor, it makes me a little queasy.”
Republican attorneys general were the first to create a party-based fund-raising group, 14 years ago. An initial appeal for contributions to
corporate lobbyists and lawyers said that public policy was being shaped “via the courthouse rather than the statehouse.” It urged corporate lawyers “to round up your clients and come see what RAGA is all about.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone has contributed $2.2 million this year to the group, making it the association’s biggest donor.
The Democrats at first fought the idea, but two years later formed a counterpart.
Dickstein, and a handful of other law firms, moved to capitalize by offering lobbying as well as legal assistance to deal with attorneys general, whom Dickstein called “the new sheriffs in town.”
In an effort to make allies rather than adversaries, Bernard Nash, the
head of the attorney general practice at Dickstein and the self-proclaimed “godfather” of the field, tells clients that it is essential to build a personal relationship with important attorneys general, part of what his firm boasts as “connections that count.”
“Through their interaction with A.G.s, these individuals will become the ‘face’ of the company to A.G.s, who are less likely to demagogue companies they know and respect,” said a confidential memo that Dickstein sent late last year to one prospective client, Caesars Entertainment.
Executing this strategy means targeting the attorneys general “front office,” a reference to the handful of important decision makers.
“Front office interest or lack of interest in an issue can come from an assessment of media reports and potential media scrutiny; advocacy group requests; political benefit or detriment; legislative inquiries; and ‘pitches’ made by law firms or other professionals in whom the front office has confidence,” Dickstein said in the memo pitching business to executives at Caesars that asked the company to pay $35,000 a month, plus expenses, for lobbying and strategic advice, not including any legal work.
Mr. Nash and his team build relationships through dinners at exclusive spots like the Flagler Steakhouse in Palm Beach, Fla., and Brown’s Beach House Restaurant in Waimea, Hawaii, during attorneys general conferences, as well as with a constant stream of campaign contributions, totaling at least
$730,000 in the last five years. Dickstein is hardly alone.
Other dinner invitations have come from former Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, whose clients have included AT&T and the debt buyers industry; former Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch of Rhode Island, who represents payday lenders, Comcast and makers of online video games; and former Attorney General Rob McKenna of Washington State, who has been retained by Microsoft and T-Mobile.
In several cases, these former officials are clearly acting as lobbyists. Mr. Lynch, who declined several requests for comment, tells prospective clients that he can guide them “through the national network of attorneys
general associations and work with them to build relationships,” yet The Times could find no record that he had registered as a lobbyist in more than two dozen states where he has worked.
State lobbying laws generally require registration when corporations hire someone to influence legislation, but appeals targeting attorneys general are not explicitly covered, even if a company is pushing its agenda.
The documents obtained by The Times include dozens of emails that Mr. Lynch has sent to attorneys general on behalf of clients. He is also a regular at the attorney general conferences, which include social events like trap shooting, fitness training and all-terrain-vehicle rides, in addition to cocktail parties and meals.
These conferences also include panels on topics like regulation of oil and natural gas pipelines.
Yet often a seat on these panels is, in effect, for sale. A large donation can secure the right to join a panel or provide an opportunity for a handpicked executive to make a solo presentation to a room full of attorneys general. That is what a top executive from TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, did at two recent attorneys general meetings in Utah and Colorado.
For the attorneys general, there is a personal benefit, too: Their airfare, meals and hotel bills at these elite resorts are generally covered, either by the corporate sponsors or state taxpayers.
Ms. Bondi, the Florida attorney general, for example, received nearly
$25,000 worth of airfare, hotels and meals in the past two years just from events sponsored by the Republican Attorneys General Association, state disclosure reports show. That money came indirectly from corporate donors.
She has charged Florida taxpayers nearly $14,000 since 2011 to take additional trips to meetings of the National Association of Attorneys General and the Conference of Western Attorneys General, including travel to Hawaii. Those events were also attended by dozens of lobbyists. Ms. Bondi, in a statement, said the support she had received — directly or through the Republican Attorneys General Association — had not had an impact on any
of her actions as attorney general.
But Matthew L. Myers, the president of the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, who was on a panel about e-cigarettes at an event in Park City, Utah, was startled by what he saw: lobbyists from regulated industries — financial, energy, alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies — socializing with top state law enforcement officers.
“You play golf with somebody, you are much less likely to see them as a piranha that is trying to devour consumers, even if that is just what they are,” said Mr. Myers.
Mr. Tierney, the former Maine attorney general, said that lobbyists were entitled to set up a meeting with the attorneys general in their offices. But to write a check, for as much as $125,000, to gain days’ worth of private time with the attorneys general is another matter, he said.
“When you start to connect the actual access to money, and the access involves law enforcement officials, you have clearly crossed a line,” he said. “What is going on is shocking, terrible.”
An Ear in Missouri
In Missouri, as in other states, the attorney general’s office has provided a springboard to higher office, either to the governor’s mansion or the Senate. So even before Mr. Koster was sworn in for his second term, he was being mentioned as a candidate for higher office. And that made him an ideal target for the team at Dickstein.
The Dickstein lawyers have donated to his campaigns, invited him and his chief deputy to be featured speakers at law firm events and hosted Mr. Koster at dinners, and stayed in close contact with his office in emails that suggest unusual familiarity.
The relationship seems to have benefited some Dickstein clients.
Pfizer, the New York-based pharmaceutical giant, had hired Dickstein to help settle a case brought by at least 20 states, which accused the company of illegally marketing two of its drugs — Zyvox and Lyrica — for unapproved uses, or making exaggerated claims about their effectiveness.
Instead of participating in the unified investigation with other states —
which gives attorneys general greater negotiating power — Mr. Koster’s office worked directly with Mr. Nash and Pfizer’s assistant general counsel, Markus Green.
Mr. Nash negotiated with Deputy Attorney General Joseph P. Dandurand through a series of emails, followed by a visit to Missouri in April 2013.
But both Pfizer and Dickstein had already built a relationship with Mr.
Koster. Dickstein had participated in at least four fund-raising events for Mr. Koster, with its lawyers and the firm donating $13,500 to his campaigns, records show.
Several of those contributions came after Mr. Nash had invited Mr.
Koster to participate in an “executive briefing” at the Park Hyatt for Dickstein’s clients. That same day, Mr. Koster held a fund-raising event, taking in contributions from Mr. Nash and other lawyers involved in matters that Mr. Koster would soon be, or already was, investigating, the records show.
Pfizer had directly donated at least $20,000 to Mr. Koster since 2009 — more than it gave to any other state attorney general, according to company records. That does not include the $320,000 that Pfizer donated during the same period to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, which in turn has donated to Mr. Koster’s campaigns.
Mr. Koster said his office was forced to negotiate directly with Mr. Nash and Pfizer because a staff lawyer missed a deadline to participate in the multistate investigation.
“This was an accident,” Mr. Koster said, adding that since he became attorney general in 2009, his office has participated in six cases against Pfizer that brought a total of $26 million to Missouri.
But the emails show that just as the negotiations on the 2013 case were intensifying, Mr. Koster’s chief deputy received an unusual invitation: Would the attorney general be interested in flying to Chicago to be the keynote speaker at a breakfast that Pfizer was sponsoring for its political action committee?
The topic was “the importance of corporations’ building productive relationships with A.G.s,” according to an email in March from Dickstein to Mr. Dandurand.
“As you know, these relationships are important to allow A.G.s and corporations to work together to address important public policy issues of concern to both the A.G. and the corporation,” the invitation said. “The conference participants also would like to hear how these relationships can help to efficiently address A.G.s’ questions or concerns before they escalate into major problems (like multistate investigations or litigation), as well as how they can carry over when A.G.s are elected to higher offices.”
Mr. Dandurand worked to accommodate the request.
“Trying now to clear his calendar,” Mr. Dandurand wrote back to the Dickstein lawyer, before confirming that Mr. Koster would accept the invitation.
“The folks at Pfizer are very appreciative and excited to hear from the General,” J. B. Kelly, a partner at Dickstein, replied.
Five days later — and just before Mr. Koster was scheduled to give the speech — Mr. Dandurand and Mr. Nash met to discuss a settlement in the fraud investigation. They agreed that Pfizer would pay Missouri $750,000 — at least $350,000 less than it would have collected if it had been part of the multistate investigation.
“Thank you for the meeting,” Mr. Nash wrote to Mr. Dandurand, after the settlement meeting in Missouri. “Pfizer is pleased.”
Mr. Koster said Missouri received a smaller payment from Pfizer because the state had less leverage after missing the multistate deadline. Oregon, the other state to negotiate directly with Pfizer on the Zyvox matter, secured a settlement worth $3.4 million — four times what Missouri received — even though Oregon’s population is far smaller.
Pfizer was not the only Dickstein client pleased with the firm’s representation before Mr. Koster’s office.
AT&T was also subject to an investigation by Mr. Koster’s office, something that Mr. Nash learned at the conference held at the Loews hotel.
And like Ms. Kalani, Mr. Nash pleaded his case directly with Mr. Koster.
Three weeks after the conversation with Mr. Nash, Mr. Koster’s office took a step that questioned the legal strategy of a multistate investigation of AT&T’s billing practices, email records show. Mr. Koster did not officially back out of the inquiry, and Missouri ultimately benefited from a national settlement announced this month.
But frustrating leaders of the multistate investigation, Mr. Koster decided to join a small group of attorneys general who, to the industry’s pleasure, wanted to resolve the matter without subpoenas or the threat of a lawsuit, the emails show.
AT&T has been a major campaign contributor to Mr. Koster’s political causes, donating more than $27,000 in just the last two years, half before and half after his actions regarding the investigation.
Mr. Koster said the donations had no effect on his actions, adding that he was determined to investigate the company for its deceptive billing practices. With 5-Hour Energy, he added, he pulled out of the investigation because he did not believe it was merited — adding that he personally uses the energy drink.
Yet he said he was angry that his staff had not notified him before joining investigations into these two major companies.
“Its stock price would move at the mere mention of our involvement,” Mr. Koster said, referring to AT&T.
Mr. Nash’s appeals were not finished.
A month after returning from the Santa Monica meeting, Mr. Koster adopted a new office policy requiring lawyers and managers in his consumer affairs division to get approval from his top aides before opening any investigations involving a publicly traded company or any company with more than 10 employees.
Mr. Nash and Lisa A. Rickard, a senior executive from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were so pleased with the change that they asked Mr. Koster to give a talk about his new office policy at a meeting of attorneys general in Washington.
“This is going to be titled my Lisa Rickard memorial presentation,” Mr.
Koster said at the February 2014 meeting. “She was the one who initiated this idea.”
The email records also reveal the personal nature of the relationship between Mr. Koster’s office and the lawyers at Dickstein.
In an August 2013 exchange, in which the attorney general’s office assured Mr. Nash that it would not share potentially damaging information on a Dickstein client with another state attorney general who was investigating the company — saying the documents were considered confidential — the conversation took a sudden turn away from business.
“Let’s go bowling sometime,” Mr. Dandurand wrote.
“Thanks,” Mr. Nash wrote back. “I’d rather eat and drink with you any time, any place.”
And an Ear in Florida
The email records show a similarly detailed interaction with the office of Ms. Bondi, the Florida attorney general and a fast-rising star in the Republican Party.
Mr. Nash and his partners worked to help Ms. Bondi further her political ambitions at the same time they were lobbying her office on behalf of companies under investigation by it.
Accretive Health, a Chicago-based hospital bill collection company, whose operations in Minnesota had been shut down by the attorney general’s office there for abusive collection practices, had turned to Dickstein Shapiro to try to make sure that other states did not follow Minnesota’s lead. Mr. Nash contacted Ms. Bondi’s chief deputy and urged the office to take no action.
“We persuaded A.G.s not to sue Accretive Health following the filing of a lawsuit by the Minnesota A.G.,” Dickstein wrote in a recent marketing brochure.
Bridgepoint Education, a for-profit online school that has been under scrutiny for what Mr. Miller, the Iowa attorney general, called “unconscionable sales practices,” turned to Dickstein to set up meetings with
Ms. Bondi’s staff, to urge her not to join in the inquiries underway in several states. Again, her office decided not to take up the matter, citing the small number of complaints about Bridgepoint it has received.
Dickstein set up a similar meeting for Herbalife, which has been investigated by federal and state authorities for sales practices related to its nutritional shakes and other products. No investigation was opened; again, Ms. Bondi’s staff said her office had received few complaints.
Perhaps the greatest victory in Florida for Dickstein relates to a lawsuit filed by Ms. Bondi’s predecessor against online reservation companies, including Travelocity and Priceline, which Dickstein then represented, based on allegations that they were conspiring to improperly withhold taxes on hotel rooms booked in the state.
Local officials in Florida were confounded by the fact that the case, which was filed before Ms. Bondi was sworn in, suddenly seemed to come to a halt.
“As our state’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, and as the people’s attorney, you have the authority to pursue action on behalf of the citizens of Florida,” Mayor Rick Kriseman of St. Petersburg, a Democrat, wrote to Ms. Bondi in 2011, while he was a state legislator, estimating that Florida was losing $100 million a year.
Behind the scenes, Dickstein had been working to get the case dropped. “Thank you so much for chatting with me last week about the online
travel site suit,” said a January 2012 email to Deputy Attorney General Patricia A. Conners from Christopher M. Tampio, a former lobbyist for the convenience store industry who was hired to work in Dickstein’s attorney general practice, even though he is not a lawyer or a registered lobbyist in Florida.
A year later, a second round of emails arrived in Ms. Bondi’s office: first, one inviting Ms. Bondi or her top aide to dinner at Ristorante Tosca in Washington, and then one from a Dickstein lawyer pointing out that similar online travel cases had recently been dismissed by Florida judges.
The email records provided to The Times show no response to
Dickstein, other than a terse “thanks.” But two months later, Ms. Bondi’s office moved to do what the firm had sought.
“Dismissed before hearing,” the state court docket shows, as the case was closed in April 2013 even before it was officially taken up by the court.
A spokesman for Ms. Bondi said her office had dropped the matter after concluding, as Dickstein had argued, that state tax law was ambiguous. The office urged the State Legislature to clarify the matter. But several Florida counties have continued to pursue the matter, taking it to the State Supreme Court.
Dickstein also took unusual steps to promote Ms. Bondi’s political career.
The firm’s lawyers helped arrange a cover article for Ms. Bondi in a magazine called InsideCounsel, which is distributed to corporate lawyers, and invited her, as it did Mr. Koster, to appear at an event in Washington that included the firm’s clients.
And as with Mr. Koster, the assistance included direct political contributions. Mr. Nash was a sponsor of an elaborate fund-raising event this year in Ms. Bondi’s honor at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, owned by Donald J. Trump, which is considered one of the most opulent mansions in the United States.
Ms. Bondi, in a statement, said none of these efforts had affected her decisions.
“My office aggressively protects Floridians from unfair and deceptive business practices, and absolutely no access to me or my staff is going to have any bearing on my efforts to protect Floridians,” she said.
The Revolving Door
In at least 31 states and in Congress, elected officials are banned from lobbying their former colleagues during a cooling-off period, which is intended to limit their ability to cash in on their contacts. Once they do start to lobby, they are required to register to disclose the work.
But even in states like Georgia, where the law prohibits state officials from registering as lobbyists or engaging in lobbying for one year after
leaving office, a former attorney general made appeals almost immediately to his former office.
Mr. Baker, who left his post as the state’s attorney general in January 2011, wrote repeatedly that year to the office of his successor, Sam Olens, and to Mr. Olens’s chief deputy, who had served in the same role during Mr. Baker’s tenure, to ask them to take actions that would benefit AT&T, which he had been hired to represent.
“Hi Thurbert,” Jeff Milsteen, Georgia’s chief deputy attorney general, replied to one of the emails that Mr. Baker sent to him in 2011, as Mr. Baker sought his successor’s public support for the proposed merger between T- Mobile and AT&T. “I’ll let you know as soon as I can.”
The next day, Mr. Milsteen wrote back. “I’ve talked to Sam,” he said, “and he is fine with you adding him to the letter.”
A spokesman for Mr. Olens said that he saw nothing wrong with the exchanges because Mr. Baker was acting as a lawyer, not as a lobbyist, and therefore was exempt from the one-year ban — which covers only lobbying of the legislature or the governor, not the attorney general.
But Mr. Baker declined, when asked by The Times, to identify a single legal filing concerning AT&T that he had been involved with. He wrote back to say that this definition of “lawyer” was too narrow.
“Lawyers are advocates,” he said.
In Washington State, both Mr. McKenna, the former attorney general, and Mr. Moran, who had been his top deputy, were pressing their former colleagues within months of leaving their jobs last year, on behalf of clients including Microsoft and T-Mobile, emails show.
For Mr. McKenna, it was quite a turnaround. He had sued T-Mobile in September 2011 to block its proposed merger with AT&T. Now, as a corporate lawyer, Mr. McKenna was setting up meetings with his successor, Mr. Ferguson, to ask him to intervene with federal officials on T-Mobile’s behalf in the inquiry over whether the company was seeking to prevent its competitors from acquiring what it thought was too large a share of the available federal wireless spectrum.
“I write today on behalf of the millions of consumers of wireless and mobile computing services,” said a letter, drafted initially by T-Mobile, but sent out by Mr. Ferguson in January, although it made no mention of the role played by the company or the former attorney general.
Email records show a similar intervention by Mr. McKenna on behalf of Washington State-based Microsoft, with outcomes that brought praise from the corporate executives. “I know that Microsoft was very pleased that you made yourself available,” Mr. McKenna wrote to Mr. Ferguson last October. “Thank you again.”
Mr. Baker and Mr. McKenna are both regulars at the attorneys general retreats. As former attorneys general, they are also special guests at events of the Society of Attorneys General Emeritus.
They have good company in the SAGE club: More than a dozen of the members are now lawyers and lobbyists for corporations, or work at plaintiff’s law firms that are seeking to secure commission-based contracts and then sue corporations on a state’s behalf.
The schedule of attorney general conferences for the coming year is laid out — after a pause for the elections — with events set for the Fontainebleau resort in Miami Beach, the Four Seasons Hotel at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas and the Grand Wailea resort on Maui, among many others. The invitations for corporate sponsorships are already being sent.
Stacey Solie contributed reporting from Seattle. Griff Palmer and Kitty Bennett contributed research.
A version of this article appears in print on October 29, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Lobbyists, Bearing Gifts, Pursue Attorneys General.
© 2014 The New York Times Company
Eric Lipton, Lobbyists, Bearing Gifts, Pursue Attorneys General, New York Times (Oct. 28, 2014) (supplemental reading) (Links to an external site.)
8.11.2. Eric Lipton, Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance with Attorneys General, New York Times (Dec. 6, 2014)
New York Times (Dec. 6, 2014)
- Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html
- Archival: https://perma.cc/Z2BM-4SNQ
COURTING FAVOR: A HIDDEN COALITION
Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General
By Eric Lipton
Dec. 6, 2014
The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in his state .
But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma's biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered to him by Devon's chief of lobbying.
"Outs tanding!" William F. Whitsitt, who at the time directed government relations at the company, said in a note to Mr. Pruitt's office. The attorney general's staff had taken Devon 's draft, copied it onto state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney gener al's signature. "The timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday with both E.P.A. and the White House."
Mr. Whitsitt then added, "Please pass along Devon's thanks to Attorney General Pruitt."
The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation's top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year.
They share a common philosophy about the reach of the federal government, but the companies also have billions of dollars at stake. And the collaboration is likely to grow: For the first time in modern American history, Republicans in January will control a majority - 27 - of attorneys general's offices.
The Times reported previously how individual attorneys general have shut down investigations, changed policies or agreed to more corporate-friendly settlement terms after intervention by lobbyists and lawyers, many of whom are also campaign benefactors.
But the attorneys general are also working collectively. Democrats for more than a decade have teamed up with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to use the court system to impose stricter regulation. But never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in federal court.
Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to fight federal regulations, according to a review of thousands of emails and court documents and dozens of interviews.
"When you use a public office, pretty shamelessly, to vouch for a private party with substantial financial interest without the disclosure of the true authorship, that is a dangerous practice;' said David B. Frohnmayer, a Republican who served a decade as attorney general in Oregon. "The puppeteer behind the stage is pulling strings, and you can't see. I don't like that. And when it is exposed, it makes you feel used."
For Mr. Pruitt, the benefits have been clear. Lobbyists and company officials have been notably solicitous, helping him raise his profile as president for two years of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a post he used to help start what he and allies called the Rule of Law campaign , which was intended to push back against Washington.
That campaign, in which attorneys general band together to operate like a large national law firm, has been used to back lawsuits and other challenges against the Obama administration on environmental issues, the Affordable Care Act and securities regulation. The most recent target is the president's executive action on immig ration.
"We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis," Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative state legislators at a conference in Dallas in July, after being welcomed with a standing ovation. "The trajectory of our nation is at risk and at stake as we respond to what is going on."
Mr. Pruitt has responded aggressively, and with a lot of helping hands . Energy industry lobbyists drafted letters for him to send to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and even President Obama, The Times found .
Industries that he regulates have also joined him as plaintiffs in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of the state attorney general, who traditiona lly sues companies to force compliance with state law.
Energy industry lobbyists have also distributed draft legislation to attorneys general and asked them to help push it through state legislatures to give the attorneys general clearer authority to challenge the Obama regulatory agenda, the documents show.
"It is quite new;' said Paul Nolette, a political-science professor at Marquette University and the author of the forthcoming book "Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policy Making in Contemporary America." "The scope, size and tenor of these collaborations is, without question, unprecedented."
And it is an emerging practice that several former attorneys general say threatens the integrity of the office.
"It is a magnificent and noble institution, the office of attorney general, as it is truly the lawyer for the people," said Terry Goddard , a Democrat who served two terms as Arizona's attorney general and who, like Mr. Frohnmayer, reviewed copies of the documents collected by The Times. "That independence is clearly at risk here. What is happening diminishes the reputation of individual attorneys general and the community as a group."
Mr. Pruitt, who has emerged as a hero to conservative activists, dismissed this criticism as misinformed.
"Those kinds of questions arise from the environment we are in - a very dysfunctional, distrustful political environment," Mr. Pruitt said in an interview. "I can say to you that is not who we are or have ever been, and despite those criticisms we sit around and make decisions about what is right, and what represents adherence to the rule of law, and we seek to advance that and try to do the best we can to educate people about our viewpoint."
In a state dominated by the energy industry, Mr. Pruitt's stands have been widely popular. "Attorney General Pruitt has been a champion for our state," said State Senator Mike Schulz, a Republican who is the majority floor leader. "The State of Oklahoma is in a better position than the E.P.A.to regulate drilling."
But Mr. Pruitt's ties with industry are clear. One of his closest partners has been Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire chief executive of Continental Resources, which is among the biggest oil and gas drilling companies in both Oklahoma and North Dakota.
This year, Mr. Pruitt joined with a group aligned with Mr. Hamm to sue the Interior Department over its plan to consider adding animals such as the lesser prairie chicken to the endangered species list, a move that Mr. Hamm has said could knock out "some of the most promising land for oil and gas leases in the country." The suit was filed after Mr. Hamm announced that he would serve as the chairman of Mr. Pruitt's re-election campaign.
"Time and time again, General Pruitt has stood up and bravely fought for the rights of Oklahomans in those instances when the federal government has overextended its hand," Mr. Hamm said as his role in Mr. Pruitt's re-election effort was announced.
A Potent Ally
Energy industry executives and lobbyists from across the United States saw great potential in Mr. Pruitt, a gifted politician who had been a state legislator and a minor-league baseball team co-owner and executive before running for attorney general.
Among them was Andrew P. Miller, a patrician 81-year-old former Virginia attorney general. Mr. Miller is a regular at gatherings of state attorneys general at resort destinations, and his client list includes TransCanada, the backer of the Keystone XL pipeline; the Southern Company, the Georgia based electric utility, which has a large number of coal-burning power plants; and the investor group behind the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska.
For the energy industry, Mr. Pruitt was an easy choice.
"There's a mentality emanating from Washington today that says, 'We know best,' " Mr. Pruitt said during his 2010 campaign. "It's a one-size-fits-all strategy, a command-and-control kind of approach, and we've got to make sure we know how to respond to that."
Among Mr. Prui tt 's first acts was to create a "federalism office," which challenged the Obama administration's plan to reduce haze in southwestern Oklahoma by requiring coal-burning electricity plants in the state to install new pollution control equipment.
His interaction with the industry, Mr. Pruitt said during an interview at his Oklahoma City office, has been motivated by a desire to gather information from experts, while defending his state's longstanding tradition of self-determination.
That ethos, he said, is depicted in a large oil painting in his office that shows local authorities with rifles at the ready confronting outsiders during the land rush era. "The founders recognized that power concentrated in a few is a bad thing," Mr. Pruitt said.
Mr. Miller made it his job to promote Mr. Pruitt nationally, both as a spokesman for the Rule of Law campaign and as the president of the Republican Attorneys General Associa tion.
"I regard the general as the A.G. best suited to take this lead on this question of federalism," Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt 's chief of staff in April 2012. "The touchstone of this initiative would be to organize the states to resist federal 'overreach' whenever it occurs."
To Mr. Miller, having Mr. Pruitt as an advocate fit a broader strategy. He wanted state attorneys general to band together the way they did when they challenged the health care law in 2010. In that effort, they hired a major national corporate law firm , Baker Hostetler, to argue the case, with much of the bill being paid through donations from executives at corporations that oppose the law.
In his initial appeal to Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Miller insisted that his approach was not "client driven." But he soon began to name individual clients - TransCanada and Pebble Mine in Alaska - that he wanted to include in the effort. The E.P.A. has held up the Pebble Mine project, which could potentially yield 80 billion pounds of copper, after concluding it would "threaten one of the world's most productive salmon fisheries."
"This strike force ought to take the form of a national state litigation team to challenge the E.P.A.'s overreach," Mr. Miller said in an email to Mr. Pruitt's office. "Like the Dalmatian at the proverbial firehouse, it could move out smartly when the alarm sounded."
A Call to Arms
Mr. Miller's pitch to Mr. Pruitt became a reality early last year at the historic Skirvin Hilton Hotel in Oklahoma City, where he brought together an extraordinary assembly of energy industry power brokers and attorneys general from nine states for what he called the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels.
The meeting took place in the shadow of office towers that dominate Oklahoma City's skyline and are home to Continental Resources, a leader in the nation's fastest-growing oil field, the Bakken formation of North Dakota, as well as Devon Energy, which drilled 1,275 new wells last year .
More liberal attorneys general, such as Douglas F. Gansler, Democrat of Maryland, did not participate.
"Indeed, General Gansler would in all likelihood try to hijack your summit," Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt in an email. "At best you would be left to preside over a debate, rather than a call to arms."
Oklahoma energy companies were there, according to an agenda, joined by executives from Peabody Energy of Missouri, the world's largest private sector coal producer, as well as the Southern Company, which has aggressively challenged federal air pollution mandates.
The nation's top corporate energy regulatory lawyers were there, too, including F. William Brownell, a senior partner at the law firm Hunton & Williams, which has spent more than 25 years fighting the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
The event was organized by an energy-industry-funded law and economics center at George Mason University of Virginia . The center is part of the brain trust of conservative, pro-industry groups that have worked from the sidelines to help Mr. Pruitt and other attorneys general.
And there was nothing ambiguous about the agenda.
"Suggested Responses to Assaults on Federalism" was the topic of one breakfast meeting, moderated by Attorney General Wayne K. Stenehjem of North Dakota, that showcased Mr. Brownell and three other top corporate regulatory lawyers. Mr. Hamm was the featured dinner speaker.
"We need to ensure the robust role of the states," said Paul M. Seby, another coal industry lawyer who attended. "And as the chief law enforcement officers, it is not surprising this is becoming a cornerstone of attorney generals' attention."
Attorneys general said they had no choice but to team up with corporate America. "When the federal government oversteps its legal authority and takes actions that hurt our businesses and residents, it's entirely appropriate for us to partner with the adversely affected private entities in fighting back," said Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida, whose top deputy attended the meeting.
A 'Strike Force'
The impact of the gathering was immediate . A week later, a new Federalism in Environmental Policy task force was established by lawyers in the offices of 19 state attorneys general, according to email records obtained from the office of Attorney General Timothy C. Fox of Montana, who had participated in the Oklahoma meeting.
"This message is in follow-up to the excellent environmental conference put on last week by George Mason University and hosted by the Oklahoma attorney general's office;' said one email sent by Katie Spohn, the deputy attorney general in Nebraska. "In order to continue our coordination of efforts regarding Federalism in Environmental Policy, I am seeking input from each state who participated in the conference."
Mr. Miller was pleased. "Just the kind of strike force I was talking about," he said in an interview.
And the input poured forth. The states worked to detail major federal environmental action, like efforts to curb fish kills, reduce ozone pollution, slow climate change and tighten regulation of coal ash. Then they identified which attorney general's office was best positioned to try to monitor it and, if necessary, attempt to block it.
Follow-up by Mr. Pruitt's federalism office often came after coordination with industry representatives, especially from Devon Energy. The company, one of the most important financial supporters for the Republican Attorneys General Association, is guarded about its public profile. But it readily turned to Mr. Pruitt and his staff for help, setting up meetings for the attorney general with its chief executive, its chief lobbyist and other important players.
"We have a clear obligation to our shareholders and others to be involved in these discussions," John Porretto, a Devon spokesman, said in a statement.
While some of the exchanges were general in character, others were quite explicit, especially the communication about the E.P.A.'s methane regulations that had prompted Mr. Whitsitt, the Devon official, to propose that Mr. Pruitt send a letter to the agency.
"Just a note to pass along the electronic version of the draft letter to Lisa Jackson at E.P.A.," said one September 2011 letter to Mr. Pruitt's chief of staff from Mr. Whitsitt. "We have no pride of authorship, so whatever you do on this is fine."
PATRICK MORRISEY The West
Virgi nia a ttorney general got a draft bill from a coal indu stry lawye r.
Mar k Webb/ The Herald-Di spatch, via
Associated Press
Mr. Pruitt took the letter and, after changing just 37 words in the 1,016-worddraft , copied it onto his state government letterhead and sent it to Ms. Jackson , the E.P.A. administ rator.
That was just one of his challenges to Washington . Devon officials also turned to Mr. Pruitt to enlist other Republican attorneys general and Republican governors to oppose a rule proposed by the Bureau of Land Management that would regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal land.
"As promised, we are sending you the attached draft of the R.G.A./ RAGA follow-up letter to President Obama opposing B.L.M.'s proposed rule," Brent Rockwood, Devon's director of government affairs, wrote to Mr. Pruitt 's staff in late 2012, in an email marked "confidenti al."
Weeks later, that letter was sent to Mr. Obama without only a few word changes , signed by Mr. Pruitt and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana , who was the head of the Republican Governors Association at the time.
Company officials again expressed their pleasure to Mr. Pruitt.
"I've learned that we're having an effect - and may be able to have more, perhaps even to having the rule withdrawn or shifted to almost a reporting only one," Mr. Whitsitt wrote, in another email marked "confidential."
The rule - which the industry claims would cost $346 million a year to comply with - has still not been issued.
Coordination between the corporations and teams of attorneys general involved in the Rule of Law effort also involves actual litigation to try to clear roadblocks to energy projects, documents show.
Energy producers , for instance, wanted to sue the Interior Department as it considered adding animals such as the sage grouse - which nests near sites of oil and gas drilling - to a list of endangered species, a move that could put tens of thousands of acres off limits to new drilling.
The energy companies could have sued on their own, but their executives believed that the case would be more potent by bringing in Mr. Pruitt and the weight of the State of Oklahoma.
ANDREW P. MILLER A version of the lobbyist's bill was approved by the West Virginia Leg islatur e.
St ephen Cr owley/ The New York Times
" We just came to the conclusion he would be the best person to be the lead attorney on this," said Mike McDonald, an owner of Triad Energy, a small oil and gas exploration company, and the president of a group that calls itself the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance . " He has exceeded our expectations."
For the industry, the state is an extremely valued partner because states are granted "special solicitude" from the federal courts , a critical advantage to private companies that helps confer legal standing and means that a matter is less likely to be dismissed.
Mr. Pruitt's office, in a statement to The Times, rejected any suggestion that the attorney general has been wrong to send to Washington comment letters written by industry lobbyists, or to take up their side in litigation.
"The A.G.'s office seeks input from the energy industry to determine real-life harm stemming from proposed federal regulations or actions," the statement said. "It is the content of the request not the source of the request that is relevant."
Persuading lawmakers to offer legislation has been another effective lobbying tool. In West Virginia, Mr. Miller handed Attorney General Patrick Morrisey a draft of legislation that he argued would put West Virginia in a better position to sue the Obama administration over proposed regulations to tighten pollution controls on power plants, emails show.
"I trust you will find the legislation acceptable in its present form," Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Morrisey in February, referring to a private meeting the two had had in the law library of Mr. Morrisey's office in Charleston. "If so, I would appreciate your having it introduced by your friends in both the Senate and the House."
A version of the bill was introduced and passed by the West Virginia Legislature in March . Delegate Rupert Phillips Jr., the chief sponsor of a second bill that also contained language identical to what Mr. Miller had requested, said in an interview that he had acted with Mr. Morrisey's support, an account supported by William B. Raney, the president of the West Virginia Coal Association.
"It is nice to have everybody singing from the same sheet of music," Mr. Raney said.
A spokesman for Mr. Morrisey disputed this account, saying that while he supported the effort to challenge the rule, he did not play a role in promoting the legislation.
Blurred Lines
The work in Mr. Pruitt's office has sometimes seemed to blur the distinction between his official duties and the advancement of his political career.
HAROLD G. HAMM The oil drilling executive was the chairman of Mr. P ruitt's re-election campaign.
Kevin Cederstrom/ Associated Pr ess
Mr. Pruitt's chief of staff, Crystal Drwenski, served as gatekeeper to his office, arranging meetings and helping companies get Mr. Pruitt and his staff to intervene with the federal authorities. But Ms. Drwenski also played an important supplemental role for the attorney general: fund-raising aide.
"A.G. Pruitt is working with the Republican Attorneys General Association on their national meeting in Washington," Ms. Drwenski wrote to Mr. Whitsitt. "The benefit of membership and participation is having 25 Republican A.G.s in a room to discuss policy issues."
Ms. Drwenski wanted Devon Energy's help in enlisting the American Petroleum Institute, and Mr. Whitsitt agreed.
"I've put in a plug to A.P.I.," Mr. Whitsitt wrote back to Ms. Drwenski, a few hours after her request, having reached out to the organization's senior lobbyist, Marty Durbin. "He is expecting a call."
In addition to the American Petroleum Institute, major energy companies - ConocoPhillips, the oil and gas company; Alpha Natural Resources, a coal mining giant; and American Electric Power, the nation's biggest coal consumer - have recently joined the Republican Attorneys General Association, bringing in hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to the group, internal documents show.
By last year, the association was starting to pull in so much money under Mr. Pruitt's leadership that it decided to break free from its partnership with the Republican State Leadership Committee, a group that represents state elected officials. Within months, the association also set up the Rule of Law Defense Fund, yet another legal entity that allows companies benefiting from the actions of Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general to make anonymous donations, in unlimited amounts. Fund-raising skyrocketed.
The $16 million that the association has collected this year is nearly four times the amount it collected in 2010, money it used mostly to buy millions of dollars' worth of television advertisements in states like Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado and Nevada, all places where Republican candidates for attorney general won election.
The fund-raising has taken place on the state level as well. Oklahoma Gas & Electric - a for-profit utility that Mr. Pruitt joined with in federal court to fight the E.P.A. - invited its employees to the Petroleum Club in downtown Oklahoma City late last year for a fund-raising event for Mr. Pruitt, drawing donations from about 45 company employees, including the chief executive. Four days later, Mr. Pruitt filed a new appeal in the case - timing that the utility said was a coincidence.
While Mr. Pruitt's efforts to raise money for the Republican Attorneys General Association have been an unqualified success, the lawsuits and regulatory appeals he has filed have yielded mixed results.
In May, the Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal on the Oklahoma Gas & Electric matter, meaning the company is now moving ahead on retrofitting its coal-burning plants. But other lawsuits are pending, including Mr. Pruitt's challenge of the Dodd-Frank law, which rewrote the nation's financial regulations, and, perhaps most important, his challenge of the tax subsidies that are a critical part of the Obama administ ration 's health care law.
Mr. Pruitt's staff has juggled various duties - helping major corporations push their challenges against Washington, and then turning to these same executives, at times, to ask them for financial support.
For example, Ms. Drwenski, who is no longer Mr. P ruitt's chief of staff, asked Devon Energy in 2012, on a workday afternoon, for help in signing up the American Petroleum Institute as a member of the Republican Attorneys General Association.
She used her personal email account to send out the initial request. But the subsequent exchange took place on her work email account, even though Oklahoma state law prohibits state officials from using state property or time to solicit political contributions. A spokesman for Mr. Pruitt said, "It is entirely possible she could have been taking a late lunch."
Mr. Pruitt, who ran unopposed to win a second term, has not needed much of the money himself, but his fund-raising efforts have greatly benefited other Republicans running for the job.
That explains the partylike atmosphere late last month in South Florida, where members of the Republican Attorneys General Association held their fall meeting at the chic Fontainebleau Miami Beach, along with hundreds of lobbyists, lawyers and corporate executives, whose companies had paid as much as $125,000 for the privilege to celebrate with them.
During the opening reception, on a giant terrace overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, with red, white and blue lights beaming onto the walls and rock music blasting, the Republican attorneys general strode to the stage to trumpet their new majority in the states.
Mr. Pruitt was there for the weekend's festivities, an event at which Devon Energy served as a corporate host, with banners hung in the hotel hallways fea turing the corporate logo.
The Oklahoma attorney general's stay was brief. The Rule of Law campaign had a new and urgent target.
"Our president sees himself as above the law," Mr. Pruitt said from Oklahoma City as he announced several days later yet another front in the campaign, a lawsuit he planned to file to challenge the Obama administration's new immigration policies. "We will take action to hold him accountable.
Correction: Dec. 14, 2014
A picture credit last Sunday with the continuation of an article about Republican attorneys general in several states who have formed a secretive alliance with some of the nation's top energy producers to oppose President Obama's regulatory agenda misidentified the photographer in some editions. The picture, of Scott Pruitt , the Oklahoma attorney general, was taken by Dylan Hollingsworth, not by Nick Oxford.
Nick Madigan contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 7, 2014, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Energy and Reg ulat ors on One Team
You've been a subscriber for over 7 years. Now share a year of The Times with someone.
Subscribers can purchase gifts at a 50% discount.
GIVE THE TIMES
Eric Lipton, Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance with Attorneys General, New York Times (Dec. 6, 2014) (supplemental reading) (Links to an external site.)