The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court ruling that dismissed a legal challenge to Attorney General Alan Wilson's practice of hiring private law firms on contingency fee arrangements, according to an opinion filed Nov. 12, 2025.
The case, *South Carolina Public Interest Foundation v. Alan Wilson*, arose after Wilson retained two private law firms to represent the state in litigation against the U.S. Department of Energy over plutonium materials transported into South Carolina beginning in 2002.
Wilson entered into contingency fee agreements with Willoughby & Hoefer, P.A. and Davidson & Wren, P.A. in 2016, with amendments made in 2019. The agreements established a sliding scale contingent fee structure for the firms' representation of the state in the federal litigation.
The arrangement proved financially successful for both the state and the private firms. The Department of Energy ultimately paid South Carolina $600 million to settle the case involving what the court described as "defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials" that the federal agency had transported into the state.
Following the settlement, Wilson transferred $75 million in attorney's fees to the private law firms under the terms of their contingency fee agreements. This payment represented 12.5% of the total settlement amount.
The South Carolina Public Interest Foundation and John Crangle filed a class action lawsuit challenging Wilson's authority to enter into such arrangements with private counsel. The plaintiffs argued that the Attorney General lacked the legal authority to hire outside firms on a contingency fee basis and sought to prevent such practices.
The case was heard in Richland County Circuit Court before Judge Daniel Coble, who dismissed the lawsuit. The circuit court found that the appellants lacked standing to bring the challenge against Wilson and the two law firms.
The appellants, represented by attorneys from Griffin Humphries LLC and The Carpenter Law Firm, appealed the dismissal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. The case was argued before the state's highest court on April 2, 2025.
In its opinion filed Tuesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. Justice James wrote the opinion for the court, which was designated as Opinion No. 28307. The court's decision was listed as "affirmed in result," indicating the justices agreed with the lower court's conclusion while potentially disagreeing with some aspects of the reasoning.
The respondents in the case were represented by multiple law firms. Willoughby & Hoefer was represented by attorneys from Simmons Law Firm, Malloy Law Firm, and Rutherford Law Firm. Davidson & Wren was represented by its own attorneys, William H. Davidson II and Kenneth P. Woodington.
Attorney General Wilson was represented by his own office, including Solicitor General Robert D. Cook and Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith Jr.
The case addresses a practice that has become increasingly common among state attorneys general nationwide. Many states have turned to private law firms to handle complex litigation, particularly in cases involving tobacco settlements, environmental claims, and other matters requiring specialized expertise.
Contingency fee arrangements allow states to pursue litigation without upfront costs, with private firms taking on the financial risk in exchange for a percentage of any recovery. Critics argue such arrangements can be costly to taxpayers and may create conflicts of interest, while supporters contend they provide states access to specialized legal expertise they might not otherwise afford.
The South Carolina case involved litigation related to the federal government's Savannah River Site, a nuclear reservation that spans parts of South Carolina and Georgia. The site has been used for nuclear materials production and processing since the 1950s, and disputes over environmental cleanup and materials transport have generated significant litigation over the years.
The $600 million settlement that prompted this lawsuit represents one of the larger recoveries in recent South Carolina legal history. The fact that private firms received $75 million in fees from the settlement highlights the financial stakes involved in such arrangements.
While the Supreme Court's opinion affirmed the result reached by the circuit court, the full reasoning behind the decision was not detailed in the available portions of the opinion. The court heard arguments in April but did not issue its decision until November, suggesting the justices may have engaged in extensive deliberations.
The ruling appears to settle, at least for now, questions about the Attorney General's authority to engage private counsel on contingency fee arrangements in South Carolina. The decision provides legal backing for Wilson and future attorneys general who wish to use similar arrangements in complex litigation.
The case number was 2024-000065, and it originated as an appeal from Richland County. The opinion represents the South Carolina Supreme Court's definitive word on this aspect of the Attorney General's authority to manage state legal affairs through private counsel arrangements.