Austin, Texas — An ongoing investigation into the Texas Attorney General’s office reveals a trend toward outsourcing legal work to private attorneys at hefty fees, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest. In one recent case involving Meta, Facebook’s parent company, attorney Zina Bash billed taxpayers a staggering $3,780 an hour for her services, resulting in a $24,570 tab for a single day’s work.
Previously, when Bash worked as senior counsel under Attorney General Ken Paxton, similar tasks would have cost the state only $641. However, after moving to private practice, she secured contracts that substantially increased the cost to the state. Investigative reports indicate that Paxton has increasingly turned to expensive outside legal representation. This shift raises concerns, especially given that many of these hires, like Bash, have ties to Paxton, both personally and politically.
Bash’s firm, Keller Postman, was awarded a significant contract as part of a legal battle against Meta. The firm ultimately secured a settlement of $1.4 billion from the tech giant, which it deemed meritless. The financial implications were substantial, as Keller Postman billed the state $97 million — the largest fee charged to date under Paxton’s administration. Critics note that this considerable expenditure was publicly funded, with Bash personally generating $3.6 million from the Meta case.
Other notable contracts awarded by Paxton include those to prominent attorneys like Tony Buzbee, who defended Paxton during his impeachment trial in 2023. Such instances create an appearance of impropriety, raising questions about the integrity of the hiring process. Legal experts have pointed out that while Paxton is not legally required to recuse himself from these decisions, ethical concerns abound.
Since 2015, Paxton’s office has embraced contingent-fee arrangements, allowing law firms to earn a percentage of any settlements won. In a clear contrast to practices in other large states, Texas attorneys general have awarded 13 contingent-fee contracts during this period, whereas their counterparts in New York and California have issued none.
In late 2020, after a scandal involving multiple whistleblower allegations against him, Paxton opted to hire Keller Postman and another law firm to pursue antitrust cases against Google. The drastic operational changes within his office coincided with the departure of several senior attorneys, who voiced concerns over Paxton’s conduct. As these firms now engage in high-stakes cases, the financial incentives significantly increase, with contracts like the one with Keller Postman allowing them to bill based on the size of any settlements.
Despite tactical justifications by Paxton that his office lacks the resources to combat massive corporations, critics argue that these outsourcings are unnecessary for a state with one of the largest attorney general’s offices in the nation, staffed with over 700 lawyers. The current approach to contracting has drawn criticism not only for cost but also for potential ethical lapses.
Moreover, Paxton’s relationship with legal firms often crosses into the political sphere. Several attorneys connected to companies receiving contracts have contributed significant amounts to Paxton’s campaign, which further complicates perceptions of fairness and accountability. Open competitive bidding for legal contracts is absent in Texas, leading experts to advocate for requiring such practices to mitigate potential favoritism.
Legal professionals from other states have pointed out successful outcomes achieved without relying heavily on private firms. California and Oregon recently secured substantial settlements from Google without external counsel, demonstrating that strong in-house capabilities can yield results.
The implications of Paxton’s legal strategy raise pressing ethical questions and financial concerns for Texas taxpayers. As his administration continues to pursue litigation against major corporations, the long-term significance of outsourcing legal work remains under scrutiny.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI and may contain inaccuracies. Requests for corrections or removals can be made by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.