FOLLOW US

The state of Utah has dismissed prominent plaintiffs’ firm Motley Rice LLC from representing it in long-running litigation over the opioid crisis, a spokesperson for the Utah Attorney General’s Office confirmed Friday.

While state officials did not publicly disclose specific reasons for the termination, the decision comes amid an ongoing ethical dispute involving OptumRx Inc., which has sought to disqualify Motley Rice from representing Utah in its case against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), including OptumRx and Express Scripts Pharmacy Inc.

“We terminated the contract. We did it pursuant to the best interest of the state,” said Hanna Seariac, director of communications for the Utah attorney general.

Motley Rice and its attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Disqualification Dispute

OptumRx has argued since July that Motley Rice’s involvement in Utah’s case violates Rule 1.11(c) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, which bars attorneys from using confidential government information obtained while acting as a public officer or employee in subsequent private representation.

According to OptumRx, Motley Rice improperly leveraged knowledge it gained while investigating the company on behalf of Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. before later suing OptumRx in a private capacity. The company claims this dual role presents a clear conflict of interest.

Utah and Motley Rice countered that any information the firm accessed during those earlier government investigations was not confidential, as it was available in the multidistrict opioid litigation (MDL) discovery repository accessible to all parties. They also emphasized that Motley Rice attorneys were not acting as public officers or employees in those matters—a key prerequisite for disqualification under Rule 1.11.

Additionally, they argued that OptumRx cannot demonstrate the firm’s access to the information placed it at any material disadvantage.

Broader Context and Judicial Commentary

OptumRx has previously attempted—unsuccessfully—to disqualify Motley Rice from similar roles, including its representation of the City of Boston in opioid-related litigation. In the national opioid MDL, U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster declined to disqualify the firm but expressed unease over the blurring of lines between representing a government as a client and acting with governmental authority.

“There is a real difference between a law firm’s representation of a governmental entity as a private client and a law firm’s wielding the authority of that government,” Judge Polster wrote. “The facts happen to work in favor of Motley Rice in this case … but the court’s discussion and analysis might have been different under other circumstances.”

Utah Follows Montana in Dropping Motley Rice

Utah is not the first state to sever ties with the firm. In 2021, Montana’s Attorney General also terminated Motley Rice’s representation in its opioid litigation, citing similar concerns and stating the decision was made because the arrangement was “not in the best interests of Montana.”