The State of Alaska has severed its relationship with South Carolina-based law firm Motley Rice LLC, one of the most prominent plaintiffs’ firms in the nation, over alleged confidentiality breaches and undisclosed conflicts of interest in the state’s opioid litigation. The move mirrors a recent decision by Utah, which also dismissed the firm from its opioid-related cases earlier this month.
Termination over Confidentiality Concerns
According to a letter sent by Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor’s office on October 23, the state decided to terminate its contract with Motley Rice after uncovering what it described as “serious concerns regarding confidentiality obligations and potential conflicts of interest.” The letter stated that Alaska “has reason to believe” the firm may have shared confidential information obtained during its representation of the state in the ongoing opioid litigation.
The Attorney General’s office also alleged that Motley Rice failed to disclose that it was representing other clients—possibly including local governments and other states—in similar lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Such dual representation, Alaska said, raised questions about whether the firm could fully protect the state’s interests without compromise.
A Longstanding Relationship Ends Abruptly
Alaska hired Motley Rice in July 2017 as part of its efforts to recover damages from companies accused of contributing to the opioid epidemic, which has taken a devastating toll on communities across the United States. The firm had represented Alaska for nearly a decade, according to Motley Rice, and helped secure significant settlements for the state and its citizens.
In its statement responding to the termination, Motley Rice expressed disappointment in the state’s decision but emphasized its pride in the results it achieved. “We are proud of our work for Alaska and the recovery of tens of millions of dollars that have gone directly to benefit its people,” the firm said. However, the firm declined to comment on the specific allegations regarding confidentiality and conflicts.
The Alaska Department of Law confirmed that the state intends to retain new outside counsel to continue its pending claims. The litigation remains active, focusing on the role of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—including Express Scripts, Inc.—in the distribution and management of opioid prescriptions. The state accuses these companies of fueling the addiction crisis by prioritizing profit over public safety. Express Scripts has denied all wrongdoing.
Utah’s Similar Break Signals Broader Scrutiny
Alaska’s action follows a similar development in Utah, where officials recently cut ties with Motley Rice under comparable circumstances. While Utah’s Attorney General Sean Reyes did not detail the reasons behind the decision, his office stated that the termination was “in the state’s best interest.” The timing of the two terminations—just weeks apart—suggests growing scrutiny over the firm’s handling of sensitive state litigation.
Court filings in Utah reveal that one of the defendant PBMs alleged Motley Rice may have obtained privileged or confidential information from other clients and used it improperly in the state’s case. Motley Rice has denied any misconduct and maintained that its actions fully complied with professional ethics and confidentiality standards.
Background: A National Opioid Legal Battle
The opioid litigation has been one of the largest and most complex sets of civil cases in U.S. history. States, counties, and municipalities have filed thousands of lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, distributors, and PBMs, alleging they played central roles in creating and exacerbating the nation’s opioid addiction epidemic.
Motley Rice, headquartered in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, has been a major player in this litigation, representing governments nationwide. The firm is known for pioneering large-scale mass tort cases, including tobacco litigation in the 1990s, 9/11 victims’ compensation cases, and defective medical device suits. Founded in 2003, the firm now employs over 100 attorneys and has secured multibillion-dollar recoveries in several landmark cases.
Despite its success, the firm’s aggressive approach has occasionally drawn criticism and controversy. Some defendants and state officials have questioned whether firms like Motley Rice should wield such significant influence over public-interest litigation, particularly when multiple government clients are involved in overlapping cases.
Legal and Ethical Questions
Legal experts note that the allegations of confidentiality breaches and conflict of interest—if substantiated—could have significant professional consequences. State contracts with outside counsel typically include strict confidentiality and conflict clauses, especially when litigation involves sensitive public data or proprietary documents.
While Alaska and Utah have not publicly detailed the precise nature of the alleged breaches, the dual terminations have fueled questions about whether other states may reconsider their relationships with Motley Rice or similar firms engaged in multi-state opioid litigation.
What Comes Next for Alaska
With Motley Rice now off the case, Alaska’s Attorney General’s office said it plans to hire a new firm to represent the state in its claims against PBMs and other opioid industry defendants. The transition could temporarily delay certain proceedings, but the state remains committed to holding corporations accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic.
The broader impact on Alaska’s opioid litigation remains uncertain. However, the episode underscores the challenges states face when partnering with private law firms on massive, multi-jurisdictional cases that involve shared evidence, overlapping claims, and high financial stakes.
A Setback for a Major Plaintiffs’ Firm
For Motley Rice, the twin terminations from Alaska and Utah mark a rare public rebuke for one of America’s most powerful plaintiffs’ firms. Though the firm has weathered controversies before, the simultaneous loss of two state clients could signal a shift in how governments vet and manage outside counsel in high-profile public health cases.
As states continue to pursue accountability for the opioid crisis, the fallout from these terminations may prompt closer scrutiny of the private firms that play such a pivotal role in the litigation landscape.
Interested in working on complex, high-impact litigation like opioid or public health cases? Explore thousands of exclusive legal job opportunities from top firms and government agencies at LawCrossing.com. Whether you’re seeking to join a national litigation team or transition into public-interest law, LawCrossing can connect you with the roles that drive meaningful change in the legal profession.
