Attorneys giving political donations to drive business with government officials the new qui pro quo?

We often look to government officials to resolve problems that plague our society - from developing Swine Flu vaccinations to providing legal council in the Bernie Madoff case. But who helps state officials when they are tasked with a growing list of responsibilities and fewer resources to tackle them than ever before?

Budget cuts overshadow a sea of necessary government projects. To ignore many of these projects means we ignore the rights and needs of the public. Without the help of private companies, government officials can't effectively provide public programs and services that benefit us all.

Private law firms provide a tremendous value to the state (not to mention the public) when hired to represent government in pending litigation. State officials typically leverage private firms for legal services requiring specialized council with little or no impact to state spending. In other words, legal services provided by private firms typically don't cost taxpayers a dime.

Hagens Berman, for instance, was chosen, after competitive bidding, to serve as legal counsel for 13 states in the landmark tobacco litigation. In addition to excellent trial skills and complex litigation experience, the firm understood the delicate needs of elected state officials. Washington and Minnesota were the only two states to take their cases to trial, which resulted in a final settlement of $206 billion for all states.

The best part - taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill. Legal services like Hagens Berman provided in the tobacco case, are usually paid on a contingency fee. Contingency fees are based solely on the outcome of a case. The attorneys get a percentage of the settlement so if the lawyer can't win the case, he or she doesn't get compensated.

State officials see a huge incentive to work with private law firms. In years past, they selected law firms based on trial records and the ability to win government litigations. The old days of fair play, however, are increasingly the now days of pay-to-play. The Wall Street Journal recently featured a story appropriately entitled, "Trial Lawyers Contribute, Shareholder Suits Follow" which hits on this exact issue.

Several firms donate millions to out-of-state candidates in an attempt to tip the scales in their favor. And it works. In 15 of 25 large class-action settlements, one or more firms representing the state in the case donated to a politician in that state, The Journal reported.

These demands from state officials cause the practice of bribery to now become a standard practice in the legal sector. Many attorneys feel their hand being forced to contribute to political campaigns, several law firms tell The Journal. It seems offering bribes is the only way to even be considered for government assignments.

State officials accept millions of dollars each year from law firms knowing there are strings attached. However, government officials are the puppet masters here, pulling strings for their own gain and coercing trial lawyers into practice bribery.

Why is the legal sector tolerating such a practice? Have attorneys become so indolent as to use bribes rather than good merit to secure government projects? Do they no longer honor the pledge made to the American Bar Association, which clearly states that political contributions in exchange for government assignments are unethical?

There are plenty of legitimate ways for lawyers to support and fund their political views. Those rights need to be exercised and respected. However, there is a clear difference between buttering the bread and buying the butter - and the butter is beginning to spoil.

The truth is lining pockets of politicians for legal favors dirty everyone's pockets. Contributions for cases will cause the public to question whether there are underlining political motives in class-action lawsuits and ultimately taint the relationships between government and legal firms.

Deception doesn't pay, but transparency does. State officials need to clearly disclose whether attorneys have made political contributions in exchange for legal representation. States need to disclose which officials have accepted bribes and from which firms. The public should be aware how much was contributed, and which firms are currently handling projects for the state.

By opening to kimono, trial lawyers bring healthy competition back to government bids, which only strengthens areas of expertise between firms. Attorneys shouldn't be expected to contribute to political campaigns in exchange for government assignments. Bribes for business need to be frowned upon across all sectors - especially law.

Recognition needs to be given to government litigation secured by a private law firm based on their merit. The state, the public and the justice system will only benefit from the best firm representing the case - not the best and biggest campaign contributor.