16-05-2025
Energy company claims use of private prosecutors in Illinois violates due process
May 15 (Reuters) - A Texas energy company facing a consumer fraud lawsuit brought by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul has filed its own lawsuit against Raoul, claiming his office's use of outside counsel to pursue the fraud case is a violation of due process rights.
In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Spark Energy said Raoul's use of lawyers from private law firms as 'Special Assistant Attorneys General' in the case against the company is barred by the U.S. Constitution because they are not neutral public officials. The lawsuit also argues that the Illinois Constitution requires officers of the state's executive branch to be compensated with state salaries.
Representatives for Raoul's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did an attorney for Spark.
Spark's lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Illinois Attorney General can't rely on outside counsel in its case against Spark, plus punitive damages.
Raoul's office filed the lawsuit against two Spark units in January in Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court, claiming the companies conned consumers into purchasing their electricity and natural gas from Spark instead of the public utility with misleading telemarketing. The lawsuit seeks at least $50,000 per deceptive act or practice.
Raoul filed the lawsuit with help from Special Assistant Attorneys General from private law firms Edelson, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym and Miner, Barnhill & Galland, court records show.
Attorneys at the firms working on the Spark litigation did not respond to requests for comment.
Spark has moved to dismiss the AG's lawsuit, according to court records, arguing among other things that the Illinois attorney general improperly has relied on private law firms to pursue the case. In a footnote, Spark said it had filed public information requests seeking details of the fee agreement between the firms and the state.
Spark argued that if the private lawyers were to be paid based on a contingency, it would be a violation of the state's constitution.
