(The Center Square) – Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown’s former law firm, legally representing an environmental organization suing the state over last year’s natural gas initiative, has active contracts with the AGO as of August.
Pacifica Law Group is currently representing Climate Solutions in a lawsuit it filed in December 2024 in King County Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of Initiative 2066, a voter-approved ballot measure preempting local efforts to phase out natural gas. The initiative was overturned by a King County Superior Court judge and is now under appeal with the Washington Supreme Court.
Among the lawsuit’s arguments is that the initiative ballot title and summary were false and misleading, violating voters’ right to an informed vote; ballot title and summary were prepared by the AGO, per state law.
After the superior court ruling, Brown put out a statement saying “while I personally disagreed with I-2066, it was passed by Washington voters and is the law of the state. My job as Attorney General is to enforce and defend the laws of Washington and I will continue to vigorously do so in this case.”
Also involved in the legal defense of I-2066 is the Building Industry Association of Washington. In an email to The Center Square, BIAW Executive VP Greg Lane wrote that their organization “has complete confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the Attorney General’s Office to aggressively defend the will of the people who approved Initiative 2066.”
However, he added that “Pacifica Law Group has a clear conflict of interest in representing Climate Solutions, yet these two organizations are irresponsibly conspiring to delay and deny Washingtonians the energy choice that they voted to protect in 2024.”
Earlier this year, The Center Square requested records from the AGO for all active contracts as of August. According to the documents, Pacific Law Group has dozens of contracts that make them special assistant attorneys general under state law while the contracts are active.
Among them is a $250,000 contract signed by then-Attorney General and current Gov. Bob Ferguson to represent him and the AGO against a potential lawsuit filed over a police use of force request for proposal. Brown was a partner with Pacifica Law Group at the time, making him Ferguson’s attorney. The potential plaintiff, Police Strategies President Bob Scales, has already filed a $42 million tort claim with the state risk manager, which was then handed to the AGO’s Tort Claim Division.
Another SAAG contract Pacifica received had it representing the Washington State Department of Transportation against a lawsuit by a former WSDOT employee; the state agency later sought sanctions against the employee after he voluntarily dropped the case, but the motion was denied by a court judge.
According to the SAAG contracts, there is a provision related to conflicts of interest that states the following: “The parties recognize that the FIRM may be asked to represent clients in cases or on matters adverse to the State of Washington. The FIRM shall follow the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.7, when the FIRM is participating in cases or matters adverse to the State of Washington. For the purposes of this Contract, and in accordance with RPC 1.13(h), the client is the [AGENCY] and not any other entities of the State of Washington. Any notice to the AGO regarding conflicts of interest shall be given to the Special Assistant Attorney General Administrator with a copy to the SAAG Contract Manager.”
The Center Square reached out to the AGO regarding Pacifica’s active SAAG contracts, asking whether the AGO granted permission to represent Climate Solutions. The Center Square also inquired how it was in the best interest of its client to allow a SAAG to sue them.
In an email, Deputy Communications Manager Mike Faulk cited the conflict-of-interest clause and said it was “standard” language “included in most of our SAAG contracts.”
“For many years, SAAGs appointed by the state to represent state agency clients have also sometimes sued the state or state agencies,” Faulk wrote. “The AGO has typically not objected to that because we want to maintain maximum flexibility for our state agency clients in choosing SAAGs.”
However, another SAAG contract for Pacifica to represent WSDOT in 2009 contains the following conflict of interest language: “The Attorney General’s Office may object to representation of clients adverse to the State of Washington in cases or matters that are unrelated to the services provided under this Agreement. The Special Assistant, however, agrees not to represent clients in any matter involving WSDOT. The Special Assistant shall decline to undertake specific tasks under this Agreement if a conflict of representation exists with respect to the specific task.”
A separate SAAG contract with law firm Perkins Coie from 2020 contains separate language, saying “in addition to any disclosure of any conflicts required under the RPCs, the FIRM agrees to disclose to the AGO when the FIRM intends to represent a client in a matter adverse to the State of Washington, when such disclosure is not prohibited by the RPCs (Rules of Professional Conduct), and when a SAAG intends to represent a client in a matter adverse to the State of Washington or any of its agencies.”
When The Center Square reached out to Pacifica Law Group regarding its active SAAG contracts while representing Climate Solutions, a firm representative wrote that “there is no conflict of interest. None of the state agencies and officials we represent as Special Assistant Attorneys General are adverse to Pacifica’s clients in the I-2066 litigation. Indeed, any cases in which Pacifica represents clients adverse to the State—including the I-2066 litigation—are unrelated to cases in which Pacifica attorneys serve as SAAGs.”
According to an analysis of fiscal data obtained from the state, Pacifica has received $7.2 million in contracts from various state agencies since the fiscal year 2022, most of it through the Department of Enterprise Services during the 2025 fiscal year.
During the COVID-19 lockdowns imposed by then-Gov. Jay Inslee, Pacifica was hired in September 2021 “to provide advice and defense of various legal challenges related to the Governor’s Proclamation 21-14 and any related amendments.” Earlier this year, Pacifica touted winning three separate COVID-19 vaccine mandate-related cases for Washington state agencies, one of which was the AGO.
The Washington State Supreme Court plans to hear oral argument for the lawsuit against I-2066 for Jan. 22, 2026.
