Document Actions
Tyson lawyer challenges AG’s counsel
Published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette March 1 and written by Robert Smith: Tyson Foods Inc. on Wednesday accused Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson of wrongly relying on private attorneys in a federal lawsuit the state filed against poultry companies. Fayetteville attorney Robert George, who represents Springdale-based Tyson, filed a motion asking the court to determine that private attorneys working for Oklahoma should not be paid with any damages awarded in the lawsuit. Paying the private attorneys a contingency fee is unconstitutional, he said, and Edmondson’s office should represent its own interests.
Tyson lawyer challenges AG’s counsel
Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2007
Tyson Foods Inc. on Wednesday accused Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson of wrongly relying on private attorneys in a federal lawsuit the state filed against poultry companies.
Fayetteville attorney Robert George, who represents Springdale-based Tyson, filed a motion asking the court to determine that private attorneys working for Oklahoma should not be paid with any damages awarded in the lawsuit.
Paying the private attorneys a contingency fee is unconstitutional, he said, and Edmondson’s office should represent its own interests.
The lawsuit, filed in 2005 at the U. S. District Court in Tulsa, accuses Tyson Foods and seven other companies of polluting the Illinois River watershed with poultry litter.
“Edmondson shouldn’t be hiring private lawyers on a bounty system and entrusting the power of the state to them,” George said.
Charlie Price, an Edmondson spokesman, said it’s consti- tutional to use private attorneys. He accused poultry companies of trying to “divert attention from the real issue.”
“They want to talk about everything but pollution,” Price said.
In his court filing, George said Tyson believes Edmondson is rewarding private attorneys who contributed to his re-election campaigns.
Contributions from private attorneys working on the case exceeded $ 62, 000 between 2001 and 2006, George wrote.
“We set out what’s very questionable is the pattern of campaign contributions coming back to Edmondson from the lawyers he’s hired,” George said.
Oklahoma’s contract with private law firms calls for them to receive one-third of any settlement the state receives.
“A fair reading of the contract leads to the inescapable conclusion that the contingency fee lawyers are in this case for the money,” George wrote. “The contingency fee contract is at war with the public interest.”
Private lawyers received $ 7. 3 million of the $ 7. 5 million settlement paid in 2003 to Tulsa by Arkansas poultry companies and Decatur, Ark.
The lawsuit was centered on pollution in the Eucha-Spavinaw watershed, which includes a small portion of Benton County.
“That high percentage going to lawyers was one of many factors that led to this filing in this case,” George said.