Who made the decision? Jim Hood or Bailey Perrin

Who made the decision to forgo an easy settlement with Eli Lily and instead overreach to be rebuked by a federal judge? Was it Jim Hood or his contingency-fee firm Bailey Perrin?

Attorney General Jim Hood often argues that his no-bid contingency-fee contracts benefit Mississippi, but not this time. It seems the Attorney General could have joined a majority of states in agreeing to a settlement himself. But that would not have been as profitable to Bailey Perrin, reportedly connected to $75,000 in campaign contributions to Hood.

Law.com reports :

Mississippi now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being one of very few states that hasn't collected on Zyprexa-related claims against Lilly.

Like several other states, Mississippi opted not to participate in Lilly's record-setting $1.4 billion False Claims Act settlement last January because it wanted to pursue its own litigation against Lilly. But most of those other states have since settled. Last fall, Lilly reached a $62 million deal with 32 states, leaving only 12 states with pending claims. And of those 12, according to LegalNewsline, most have reached official or tentative settlements, including Connecticut ($25.1 million); West Virginia ($22 million-plus); Idaho ($13 million); Utah ($24 million); and South Carolina ($45 million).

Did Hood's outside lawyers decline to settle in order to pursue larger claims and in return rake in more millions? Or did Hood make that decision? Was the decision based on what was best for the client - Mississippi - or did the terms of the contract fee affect the calculations?

Philip Thomas posts at Mississippi Litigation Review that the "loss in Zyprexa Case was a disaster for Attorney General Jim Hood."

This looks like a disaster for General Hood. First, Mississippi loses and collects nothing while other states settled similar claims and made substantial recoveries...Eli Lilly hemorrhaged money to settle the Zyprexa claims and Mississippi, with its budget in ruins, gets nothing. Second, as if the loss was not bad enough, the article revealed that Hood’s hand-picked outside counsel donated substantial money to Hood...$75,000??? From a law firm in Texas? Why in the world, other than the obvious reason, would a law firm in Texas be donating $75,000 to the Mississippi Attorney General?

This is more ammunition for Hood’s critics in general, and the critics of the State’s system of allowing the A.G. to hire and pay outside counsel in particular.

I do not have a problem with the A.G. hiring outside counsel, in theory. But a Texas firm who donated $75,000 to Hood? Let’s be honest—that does not look good. There are plenty of good lawyers in Mississippi who could represent the State and need the work. But there is probably a shortage of non-incarcerated (former) Mississippi lawyers who donated $75,000 to Hood.

Hood is going to end up giving his critics enough ammunition to get the State Legislature to enact a law that restricts the A.G.’s ability to hire outside counsel.

But Hood's office is "pleased."

"While we are disappointed with Judge Weinstein's ruling on some of our claims, we are pleased that the Judge saw the merit in our claim for the millions of inflated drug costs Eli Lilly charged our state over the course of several years," Hood spokesperson Jan Schaefer said.

"We remain confident that our state will ultimately prevail."

Eli Lily is also "pleased."

Weinstein's ruling left standing only Mississippi's claims based on the difference between the market price of Zyprexa and the value the state received. According to Weinstein, that issue is before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals...Lilly...told LegalNewline it was "pleased" with the decision