Briggs v. Slatton-Hodges
4:23-cv-00081
| N.D. Okla. | Mar 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are representatives of individuals and a class similarly situated, bringing claims concerning the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.
- Defendants are state officials acting in their official capacities within the Department and the Oklahoma Forensic Center.
- Defendants and the Oklahoma Attorney General agreed to the terms of a Consent Decree to resolve the case.
- The Attorney General sought to strike appearances of certain defense attorneys and assume control of the State’s legal representation.
- Defendants moved to substitute their counsel, arguing they are entitled to representation of their choosing for implementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree.
- The Court retained jurisdiction over enforcement issues, despite approval of the Consent Decree being pending legislative approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who controls the State’s legal representation during enforcement of the Consent Decree? | Support right to attorneys who will present the client’s interests, per defendants’ wishes | Defendants entitled to counsel of their choice as their interests diverge from AG | Defendants may substitute their counsel; AG cannot unilaterally strike other counsel |
| Can the Attorney General exclude other defense counsel and control state representation? | AG seeks to strike appearances and claim sole authority | Defendants contest, citing statutory and constitutional rights to counsel of choice | AG's statutory authority "subordinate" to defendants' right to choose counsel |
| May the Attorney General remain in the litigation in any capacity? | No objection if AG retains limited, ex officio role | Defendants permit AG involvement, but not control | AG may continue to appear ex officio, not as lead counsel |
| Are the motions to substitute or strike counsel moot due to case settlement? | Plaintiffs might argue mootness post-settlement | Defendants (and Court) note enforcement issues may arise | Motions not moot due to ongoing jurisdiction over Consent Decree enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Howard v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm’n, 614 P.2d 45 (Okla. 1980) (right of a state agency to choose legal counsel whose views are consonant with the agency's interests)