In a significant shift in strategy, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has increasingly turned to private law firms to handle high-profile cases, a move that has raised concerns about costs and potential conflicts of interest. An investigation by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica reveals that Paxton’s office has outsourced legal work to expensive private attorneys, often those with personal or political connections to him, leading to substantial costs for Texas taxpayers.
One notable case involved attorney Zina Bash, who previously served as senior counsel in Paxton’s office. After moving to private practice, she billed $3,780 an hour for her work on a case against Meta, the parent company of Facebook. This resulted in a staggering $24,570 bill for just 6.5 hours of work, a sharp contrast to the $641 it would have cost taxpayers had she remained in the attorney general’s office. Over the past five years, Paxton has increasingly relied on such costly private lawyers, raising questions about the efficiency and ethics of this approach.
The trend is not limited to Bash. Paxton has awarded contracts to attorneys with whom he has direct ties, including Tony Buzbee, who defended him during his impeachment trial. Records indicate that since 2015, Paxton’s office has signed 13 contingent-fee contracts—where outside firms receive a percentage of any settlement—while other large states like California and New York have awarded none.
These contracts have proven lucrative for the firms involved. For instance, in the Meta litigation, Bash’s firm, Keller Postman, earned $97 million after settling the case for $1.4 billion. Despite the high costs, Paxton has defended his practice of hiring outside counsel, claiming that his office lacks the resources to effectively challenge large corporations.
Critics, including former officials and legal experts, question the necessity and ethics of outsourcing legal work in a state with one of the largest attorney general offices in the country, which employs over 700 attorneys. They argue that Paxton’s reliance on private firms may stem from the fallout of a whistleblower scandal that damaged the office’s reputation and led to the departure of experienced attorneys.
The history of Texas attorney generals using private counsel is fraught with controversy. Dan Morales, the last Democrat to hold the office, faced scandal for awarding excessive fees to outside lawyers during a landmark tobacco settlement. His successor, John Cornyn, avoided such practices, focusing instead on building a strong in-house legal team. Paxton, however, has shifted course, particularly following the upheaval in his office after whistleblowers reported him to the FBI for alleged misconduct.
As the controversy continues, the lack of competitive bidding for these contracts raises further concerns about favoritism and accountability. In Texas, the attorney general can award contracts without seeking bids, a practice that critics argue opens the door for potential conflicts of interest. For example, several attorneys hired by Paxton have made substantial campaign contributions, leading to allegations that these contracts serve as paybacks.
Despite the high-profile nature of these cases, experts argue that Texas could achieve significant legal victories without relying heavily on private firms. Other states have successfully negotiated settlements without outsourcing, emphasizing the importance of effective enforcement over financial gain.
As the debate continues, the implications of Paxton’s legal strategy remain a key issue for Texas taxpayers and the broader political landscape. The growing reliance on private attorneys not only raises questions about cost and accountability but also challenges the integrity of the attorney general’s office during a time of heightened scrutiny.