Wall Street Journal Article Focuses on Pay-to-Play in State Pension Shareholder Lawsuits
Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal contains this article about pay-to-play political donations by law firms that specialize in shareholder actions. WSJ’s analysis revealed that leading plaintiff shareholder lawsuit firms donate massive amounts of cash to state officials, apparently leading to the firms getting hired to represent states in shareholder actions against companies whose shares are owned by state pension funds. 
Mississippi was not mentioned in the article and none of the law firms mentioned are located in Mississippi.
The WSJ investigation:
found that 25 leading firms, their lawyers and family members contributed a total of more than $21 million in the past decade to state-level candidates and party funds, as well as to national-party groups that work to elect state officials. Less than 40% went to candidates within the law firms' home states.
Some plaintiffs firms defend the donations as legitimate:
Asked why its lawyers gave to a county treasurer in a state not its own, Labaton Sucharow said its "members and their families make perfectly legal political contributions to elected officials and candidates who support shareholder rights."
But other plaintiff lawyers admit that there are places where you have to pay-to-play:
"There are certain places where, to be in the game, you have to donate," said Steven Toll, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC in Washington. It has contributed only modestly—$62,000 to out-of-state candidates—and Mr. Toll says he is sure its low level of giving has cost the firm business. But "we want to be chosen on merit, not because we contributed money," he said.
Other plaintiff lawyers are afraid to not donate:
Some lawyers say they aren't sure whether contributing helps them get government business, but are afraid not to. Some track how much rivals donate so they don't fall too far behind.
Critics of the pay-to-play culture include some plaintiff lawyers:
Some lawyers say widespread political giving by plaintiffs' law firms, especially outside their home states and near the time when counsel are chosen, is evidence of a corrosive pay-to-play culture in the securities-litigation industry.
"Plaintiffs' lawyers donate because they think it buys them access to people who make decisions over how pension funds select counsel," says Fred Isquith, a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a plaintiffs' firm in New York. Such giving "creates an appearance of complete impropriety," he says, and "should be outlawed."
The American bar Association also does not approve:
The ABA, in giving guidance on ethics, says lawyers shouldn't accept a "government assignment" if they made a political contribution "for the purpose of obtaining or being considered for" such a job.
The incentive to get shareholder cases is high:
In the biggest cases, legal fees can run in the [tens of] millions.
In Mississippi there have been pay-to-play allegations involving lawsuits where the attorney general hires outside counsel to assert claims on behalf of the State.
Do not look for pay-to-play to end anytime soon despite media attention and criticism from the public and bar. As long as any firms can legally make political contributions and then get hired in a big lawsuit, they will do it. Even firms that despise the system will make the donations because they fear that they have to in order to get the cases.
