Ducey’s office paid $695,000 in losing legal battle

Gov. Doug Ducey’s office paid nearly $700,000 to private law firms in a losing effort to defend an embattled ballot initiative that increased school funding disbursements from the state land trust.

The Governor’s Office paid five lawyers at two firms $695,077 to argue Ducey’s position that the civil suit brought by Phoenix resident Michael Pierce to Proposition 123 lacked merit.

Judge Neil Wake of U.S. District Court ruled last month that previous money transfers under Prop. 123 — a plan created by Ducey to increase school funding — violated federal law because it diverted millions from the land trust without prior authorization from Congress.

Ducey’s outside legal team worked 1,133 billable hours, which amounts to pay of approximately $613 an hour.

For comparison, Pierce, 66, filed the lawsuit on his own, and was later aided by Phoenix attorney Andrew Jacob on a pro bono basis.

While Ducey’s general counsel, Mike Liburdi, was involved in the Prop. 123 case, the Governor’s Office hired outside legal counsel to handle in-court appearances, said Ducey spokesman Patrick Ptak.

Ducey’s office paid global megafirm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $406,093 for work related to the Prop. 123 case, according to information provided by the Governor’s Office. Ducey retained legal counsel from former U. S. Solicitor General Ted Olsen, who just last month declined to join Trump’s legal team. Matthew McGill, of Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C., location, also worked on the case.

The Governor’s Office also retained several lawyers from Phoenix firm Fennemore Craig. Ducey’s office paid $288,983 for the work of attorneys Teresa Dwyer, Timothy Berg, and Kevin Green.

“What’s at stake is $3.5 billion for Arizona schools,” Ptak said. “It’s important for the state to have appropriate legal representation to protect these dollars for our schools, and we will spend whatever is necessary to ensure that happens.”

Ducey created the Prop. 123 funding package as a response to a lawsuit brought by the schools that alleged the state violated portions of an earlier ballot measure requiring the state to annually increase its aid to schools. Ducey’s fix would infuse into the state’s underfunded schools an additional $3.5 billion over 10 years.

Pierce’s lawsuit argued that Prop. 123 was illegal because the state should have first received congressional approval for the constitutional amendment before allowing voters to decide on the referendum.

Attorneys representing the state argued that Pierce didn’t have standing to bring the lawsuit, and urged the judge to dismiss the case.

Arizona received congressional approval for Prop. 123 this year — about two years after the ballot initiative passed.

The legal battle over Prop. 123 isn’t over yet. At question now is the $344 million in land trust funds the state disbursed to Arizona schools before receiving congressional approval of Prop. 123.

In his ruling, Wake recommended the parties settle. But if they cannot come to an agreement, the parties will return to court to spar over what is to be done about the $344 million, in which case, Ducey’s lawyers could rack up additional legal fees for the Governor’s Office.