In January I wrote about the $8.3 million attorney fee sought in Attorney General Jim Hood’s action against Microsoft. The dispute continues with Plaintiff’s counsel filing this Memorandum Opposing Intervention by State Auditor Stacey Pickering on March 24, 2010.

Hood’s lawyers argue that Pickering is late to the dance, having filed his motion to intervene over five years after Hood hired the lawyers and they filed the lawsuit. A cursory reading of the response suggests that Pickering is going to lose. But does he even care?

Political gamesmanship is the likely motivator behind Pickering’s attempted intervention. He arguably gets the political benefit from his stance regardless of whether he wins or not. Either way, he can claim on the campaign trail that he challenged Jim Hood and “trial lawyers.” Winning the challenge was probably always a secondary goal.

Incidentally, I recently read that the general public does not vilify “trial lawyers” as much as some people think.