A couple weeks ago – before I had to get my insides worked on in the clinker (okay, so it was the hospital but it was just as bad) – we started to discuss Jack Conway getting sued by a Merck subsidiary. Primarily because Jack chose Garmer & Prather to sue Merck on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. If the state wins, Garmer & Prather win an unknown (?) cut of the jury award or settlement.
That got us thinking. And you know that’s never good.
Here’s why the contingency fee bit is maybe not so great:
“The contingency-fee arrangement thus creates a powerful incentive for contingency-fee counsel to focus single-mindedly on maximizing the amount of civil penalties recovered on behalf of the Commonwealth from Merck,” the drugmaker argues in its suit. “Simply put, the contingency-fee arrangement amounts to a biasing influence, which, among other things, increases substantially the risk of overzealous prosecution. The pernicious consequences of the contingency-fee arrangement are exacerbated by contingency-fee counsel’s lack of public accountability”
It’s got a lot of folks in Frankfort pretty nervous.
After reading everything we could and talking to everybody we could, we started to dig further. Up popped the personal services contract for Garmer & Prather that was approved by none other than Governor Steve Beshear:
CLICK FOR PDF
It’s obviously common practice for papaw to approve contracts like this. But when you read through it and allow the weight of the situation to sink in? You begin to realize that Beshear will likely wish this is one contract he hadn’t approved for Jack Conway.
Now that there are official ties between all three parties (Conway-Beshear-Garmer), how on earth is it, again, that Allison Martin proclaim that it’s a-okay for Jack to investigate campaign finance fraud allegations against Beshear? And how will this not impact Beshear if Jack loses the suit?
Bill Garmer, former KDP chair, maxed out to Jack’s 2007 race and maxed out in the 2010 race. We didn’t bother checking the 2002 race when Anne Northup trampled him. He’s also maxed out to Beshear – both in 2007 and 2011.
I realize I flowed from a suit against Jack to conflicts of interest but it’s such a jumbled mess I could gag.
5 responses so far ↓
1 KY Common Sense // Sep 7, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Reminds of the state’s lawsuit against the online gambling folks. Hire a big shot firm who has everything to gain by getting a big settlement.
2 Jinx // Sep 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Mmmmm, a very hot mess. There are more questions than answers.
First of all, how does a house bill authorize the Attorney General to spend money? see pg 3 of 13 of contract. I thought that required a statute, but maybe I am wrong.
And was this provision of HB1 actually enacted? According to LRC part of this bill was vetoed in part.
Last, and most interesting is which legislator put this gem in HB1 “Notwithstanding KRS Chapter 45A, the Office of the Attorney General may contract with outside law firms on a contingency basis”. which is fancy language that little Jackie doesn’t have to use the bid process.
Oh, and what contingency basis? Does Garmer get 30%? Does he get 50%?? Exactly how sweet is this sweetheart deal ?
3 James Rock // Sep 7, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Jake, glad to see you’re finally getting out of that liberal mindset and fighting for the “right” cause. Keep on keeping, I know you lost your liberal audience/traffic but who cares.
4 jake // Sep 7, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Haven’t lost traffic and haven’t stopped being socially liberal.
What would either of those have to do with standing against bullshit and corruption? Both parties in power are full of it.
5 E // Sep 8, 2011 at 9:35 am
I don’t care all that much about one’s (supposed) political bent.
What I do care about is the ferreting out of corruption and bullshit in politics.
I can’t help but note that NO other media outlet seems to have connected the dots, much less researched and published anything about this mess.
Exposing corruption, patronage, and cronyism, in my mind, is apolitical.
Leave a Comment