David C,

I would agree with you except for the fact that a bid in response to an RFP has to be evaluated along stated criteria that goes beyond “fees” or “costs.” For example, a lawyer who has never tried a case like this may not get the same score in the category of “experience” as a lawyer who has successfully tried the case.

Other areas to evaluate would be rates, size of staff, expertise in the area (which is not the same as a successful outcome in a trial,) reputation, bar complaints, etc.

There is much more than can be evaluated than just fees.

“They donated to my campaign” should never ever be on the list of “qualifications” for any job or contract.

Going for the expensive shyster who promises he can win the case guaranteed is equally unwise.

That’s probably why even governments use contingency fees for these kinds of arrangements.

“Why treat lawyers differently?”

Well, for one thing… If your roadbuilder is trash and doesn’t build your road, you can refuse to pay them and hire another. If your lawyer is trash and loses your case, you can’t just hire another one and bring the case again – you’ve lost that case forever. So going for the lowest bid is perhaps not wise.

I can’t speak for Walter, but:

“Do you think that the whole law suit is BS (it is something Edwards campaigned on)?”

Yes.

“Or are you just concerned that the lawyers will be over-compensated?”

Yes, they will be over-compensated, but that is not the only concern.

“Their fees should be spelled out well”

The plain is for them to be paid on a contingency basis, so there is no spelling out their fees in advance.

“I have not seen anyone going after the attorneys who represented Congress in the cases against the President, or the attorneys Governor Christie hired for a state investigation. ”

The attorneys who represented Congress against the President were not paid on a contingency basis because the suit was not after a monetary award/settlement.

I am not familiar with the Christie case you mention.

“Moreover, I have not heard you complaining that large corporations who win government contracts or benefit from laws are contributing to campaigns. To the contrary, when those companies do it, it is “free speech.” Why treat lawyers differently?”

Because contingency fees in cases like this are a vastly bigger payday than the vast majority of government contractors get. out of their contracts. The payout to the law firms will be 99% profit.

You’re right. Why treat them differently?

When a company goes to build a road, they must put in a bid or answer a RFP. When a company provides goods such as office supplies, they have to submit proposals.

So why appoint lawyers absent of the same qualifications for services other industries have to go through?

Why treat lawyers differently?

Or are you just concerned that the lawyers will be over-compensated? That, IMHO, is a legitimate concern. Their fees should be spelled out well. However, just because they are politically connected should not disqualify them, especially those who are experts in environmental law.

I have not seen anyone going after the attorneys who represented Congress in the cases against the President, or the attorneys Governor Christie hired for a state investigation. Moreover, I have not heard you complaining that large corporations who win government contracts or benefit from laws are contributing to campaigns. To the contrary, when those companies do it, it is “free speech.” Why treat lawyers differently?

To me, it all smells as rotten as a bayou contaminated by the oil companies..