Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Affairs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to limit municipal contingency‑fee lawsuits fails to reach required majority
Summary
A bill that would have required Attorney General approval for municipal contingency‑fee contracts and narrowed public‑nuisance claims (House Bill 2069) drew extensive floor debate about local authority and prior opioid litigation outcomes; it failed to obtain the constitutional majority and was returned to the calendar rules committee.
The House debated House Bill 20‑69, led by Chairman Todd (speaker 33), a measure that would require political subdivisions to obtain the attorney general’s approval before hiring outside counsel on a contingency‑fee basis and narrows the scope of local public‑nuisance litigation. Sponsors said the bill prevents policy being set through courts; opponents said it would curtail local governments’ ability to pursue large‑scale litigation that benefited counties in past opioid settlements.
Representative Clemens (speaker 26) warned the measure would limit a widely used tool for municipalities, noting contingency agreements enabled local governments to recover funds in state‑wide litigation. "Why we want to force this to go through the attorney general is unknown," Clemens said during floor remarks, arguing local governments know best how to pursue litigation for local harms.
Chairman Todd responded that the amendment set protections for existing lawsuits and sought to prevent extrajudicial policy making through broad public‑nuisance theories. The transcript shows the recorded vote as Ayes 36, Nays 32 with 22 present (not voting); the clerk announced the bill failed to receive the constitutionally required majority and House Bill 20‑69 was referred back to the calendar rules committee for further consideration.
Next steps: because the measure did not achieve the supermajority required for the calendar action, it will return to committee for further work.
