Court Smackdown Exposes Hidden State Contract

Louisiana taxpayers were kept in the dark while state officials signed off on a legal defense contract charging up to $1,000 an hour—double what state law typically allows.

Quick Take

A public-records lawsuit forced Louisiana to release a contract showing out-of-state lawyers were paid $1,000 per hour to defend the Louisiana State Police.
The original rate was reportedly $750 per hour—already above Louisiana’s statutory $500-per-hour limit for legal contracts.
A state judge ruled the contract was a public record and ordered the Department of Public Safety to pay the requester’s attorney fees.
The dispute unfolded as state leaders were pushing changes that critics said would weaken Louisiana’s public-records law.

A $1,000-an-Hour Contract—And a Fight to Keep It Secret

The Louisiana Department of Public Safety eventually turned over a contract showing the state hired the Washington, D.C. law firm WilmerHale at a $1,000-per-hour rate to defend the Louisiana State Police in a federal investigation into alleged racial discrimination and excessive force. The contract did not surface through routine transparency; it came out after The Lens, a nonprofit newsroom, sued for the records and won an order requiring disclosure.

The timeline matters because it shows how hard the state pushed back. In March 2024, The Lens requested contracts between WilmerHale and the Department of Public Safety. Agency lawyers refused, citing various legal exemptions. A hearing followed in May 2024 in Baton Rouge before Judge Eboni Johnson Rose. The day before the next scheduled court date, the agency provided the contract. On May 29, the judge ruled it was a public record and ordered attorney fees.

Why the Hourly Rate Raises Red Flags for Taxpayers

Louisiana’s statutory cap for legal services is described as $500 per hour, but the state initially hired WilmerHale at $750 per hour and later signed a contract at $1,000 per hour. Even without getting into politics, that kind of spending demands sunlight, because the bill goes to working families. The key issue is not whether government can hire outside counsel—it can—but whether it can evade limits and hide the paperwork.

The state’s resistance also carried broader implications. According to the reporting, lawyers argued the contract could be shielded using concepts like attorney-client privilege and “mental impressions,” and even invoked a “deliberative process” exemption that does not exist in Louisiana law. If those arguments had prevailed, the practical effect would have been to wall off legal contracts across Louisiana government—potentially millions in taxpayer-funded spending—away from public oversight.

The Federal Probe, the State Police, and Competing Narratives

The legal defense was tied to a federal investigation examining alleged patterns of racial discrimination and excessive force within the Louisiana State Police. The attorney general’s office announced hiring WilmerHale and former Trump Justice Department official Ed O’Callaghan to “engage the federal government” and conduct a comprehensive review of state police policies and practices. The story does not resolve what strategies were ultimately pursued, and it leaves open questions about what the firm’s work product involved.

Public reaction quickly turned into a debate about priorities and accountability. The ACLU of Louisiana argued taxpayers should not shoulder extreme legal costs tied to defending “unconstitutional conduct” and said funding should be directed to training and resources to prevent violence. Meanwhile, former Republican state representative Barry Ivey publicly criticized the administration’s posture toward records requests, showing that transparency concerns can cut across ideological lines when government controls the checkbook.

A Court Ruling That Reinforces Public-Records Rights

Judge Johnson Rose’s decision that the contract is a public record is the biggest concrete takeaway. It reinforces a plain, constitutional instinct many conservatives share: government power must come with public accountability, especially when officials spend other people’s money. When agencies can claim secrecy over basic contracts, citizens lose the ability to evaluate whether leaders are obeying statutes, respecting budget constraints, and acting competently in high-stakes situations that affect public trust.

The case also landed amid wider disputes about transparency and ethics in Louisiana politics and governance. Other reporting during the period referenced litigation over public financing schemes and federal corruption proceedings involving local officials. Those separate stories do not prove misconduct in this contract dispute, but they do underline why records laws matter: when government operates behind closed doors, costs rise, confidence drops, and ordinary taxpayers—who cannot bill $1,000 an hour—pay the price.