For example, in Mississippi, one law firm has been awarded $304 million for its involvement in that State’s tobacco lawsuit (the total fee awarded to all lawyers who represented Mississippi was $1.4 billion). The five firms that represented Texas are attempting to share a $3.3 billion award from an arbitration panel, though Texas is challenging their fee. The single law firm that represented Minnesota was awarded $440 million over two years. In addition to the sheer amount of legal fees involved, these contracts have been the source of other controversies. For instance, allegations arising out of Texas’ contract to the five law firms are currently under investigation by Texas’ attorney general and the FBI. This partnership of trial lawyers and government officials has led to unprecedented political clout by the plaintiffs’ bar.

The third factor leading to these lawsuits is the ability to make policy decisions through litigation. Exploiting their alliance with a mere handful of like-minded government officials, some members of the plaintiffs’ bar are in a unique position to bypass legislatures and determine public policy through the courts. For instance, the firearms industry is relatively small when compared to other targets of these lawsuits and cannot possibly pay the huge damages that are sought in these types of cases. Many believe that these particular suits seem to be more about achieving policy goals that could not be obtained through other means (such as the legislature). As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich described in an editorial earlier this year, “the era of big government may be over, but the era of regulation through litigation is in.” The Chamber, however, believes that these decisions should be left where they rightfully belong – in the legislative bodies.