Alaska has abruptly ended its partnership with national law firm Motley Rice, accusing the firm of breaching confidentiality and conflict-of-interest rules while representing the state in its long-running opioid litigation.
The state’s attorney general, Stephen Cox, said in a letter dated October 23 that Motley Rice failed to disclose its simultaneous representation of other clients involved in similar opioid-related cases. The correspondence, obtained through a records request, claimed Alaska had “reason to believe” the firm may have shared confidential state information and confirmed the search for new legal counsel was already underway.
This development mirrors a similar move from Utah, which terminated its own contract with Motley Rice on October 16. Both states had enlisted the firm to sue major pharmacy benefit managers—companies accused of prioritizing access to addictive painkillers despite mounting evidence of public harm.
Motley Rice, one of the most prominent plaintiffs’ firms in the country, defended its record, saying it had spent nearly a decade helping Alaska recover tens of millions of dollars linked to the opioid crisis. The firm expressed pride in its contribution but declined to disclose the details of its response to the attorney general’s letter.
Court filings show Motley Rice was simultaneously representing government entities in Ohio over opioid claims. Despite that overlap, the firm was not disqualified in Alaska’s ongoing case against Express Scripts, a major pharmacy benefits manager accused of deceptive practices and contributing to the state’s opioid emergency. Express Scripts’ parent company, Cigna, did not comment on the matter.
The controversy comes as several states—regardless of political affiliation—continue to outsource complex litigation to private firms with deep resources. Such arrangements have long been controversial, with critics arguing that governments risk ceding too much control to outside lawyers in pursuit of large settlements.
Motley Rice, founded in 2003 and based in South Carolina, has made its name in massive public-impact cases, including those against Big Tobacco and medical device manufacturers. But its recent conflicts in the opioid saga are testing the boundaries of public–private partnerships in state-led litigation.
For Alaska and Utah, the break marks a shift in strategy—and perhaps a signal that the battle over accountability in America’s opioid crisis is entering a new, more guarded phase.
