BOTH OF HIS predecessors ran into political firestorms over hiring private attorneys to represent the state in lawsuits, and so Attorney General Henry McMaster has been understandably cautious about dealing with outside counsel.

Travis Medlock’s problem was attorneys he approved to defend suits against the state Insurance Reserve Fund; many were campaign donors. The Budget and Control Board lifted that conflict from the attorney general, by allowing the fund to select its own attorneys — a practice whose wisdom and constitutionality Mr. McMaster reasonably questions, but which he isn’t taking on yet.

But the problem that dogged Charlie Condon — hiring private attorneys to bring lawsuits on behalf of the state — has not been resolved, and Mr. McMaster has come up with what appears to be a reasonable way to not only avoid the political minefields but, more importantly, get the best possible deal for the state.

For his first 20 months in office, Mr. McMaster has declined to authorize lawsuits several attorneys have proposed to bring. But he considered that a bad strategy, because some of the cases had merit and were likely to result in big wins for the state.

In fact, his office took on one of the cases itself, resulting in SCE&G agreeing last month to repay $1.4 million to about 7,000 customers who had been illegally charged municipal franchise fees. But it was an easy case that SCE&G was quite willing to settle. Most suits filed by states aren’t so simple, and with an annual budget of $6 million, the attorney general can hardly afford to invest a half million dollars up front in hope of a hefty return, eventually.

So after discussing the matter at a national attorneys general meeting and reviewing the Ohio attorney general’s policy, Mr. McMaster has produced a “Litigation Retention Agreement for Special Counsel” to use with private attorneys he appoints to bring lawsuits on behalf of the state. That agreement, and subsequent information about the attorneys’ work, would be open to public inspection. He’s in discussions over several cases now.

“The main thing is to keep the fee reasonable and make it clear the attorney general is in charge and can fire them for any reason or no reason at all,” Mr. McMaster told me.

The terms are a far cry from previous policy, starting with the fees. Other attorneys general have either set fees at the industry standard of around 25 percent or more or else left them to judges, who typically use a similar standard. Mr. McMaster plans to cap fees at 23 percent of actual damages in the smallest cases; the percentage would go down as the award goes up, dropping as low as 4 percent if the judgment exceeds $100 million; attorneys would get even less of any punitive damages, from 10 percent on the first $10 million to 3 percent on more than $100 million. And they would have to pay the attorney general’s office 10 percent of that to cover overhead.

The deal doesn’t get any more attractive from the lawyers’ perspective: If the case settles early, the fee is halved. If the lawyers are fired for cause, they don’t even get reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses; if they’re fired without cause, they might get reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses, but only if another lawyer takes over the case and wins a judgment.

It’s too early to tell whether attorneys will still be interested in bringing suits when they see those rules, but Mr. McMaster is betting that they will, because the potential for huge awards is much greater when you’re suing on behalf of an entire state, rather than individual plaintiffs. If not, he might make changes, he said, “but the way I look at it, I’m holding all the cards.”

Other changes are more certainly in the offing. Mr. McMaster plans to hire the lawyer who comes up with the idea of a suit, unless he decides that person can’t handle it; if more than one attorney pitches the same idea, he might hire both. He’s willing to consider a request-for-proposals procedure, but he notes that hiring an attorney “isn’t like getting a roof done; there are some intangibles.”

That’s absolutely true. That’s also where the political trouble begins; what looks to the attorney general like a clear case of one attorney being better qualified than another can look to critics like an attorney general throwing lucrative cases to political supporters.

Mr. McMaster said he’s likely to include in the agreements a list of any campaign donations the private attorneys made to him or anyone in the most recent attorney general election. That’s a nice idea, and we’re liable to see more than one who gave generously to all the candidates.

The larger potential for abuse is one that many people don’t even consider abusive — an attorney general trying to set policy, which is the job of the Legislature, through litigation (think McDonald’s made me fat).

Mr. McMaster is aware of the danger, and decries the tendency of some states’ attorneys general to do just that. But there’s probably nothing you can put in writing to guard against it. So the attorney general must choose between turning down all cases, and perhaps allow companies to illegally take advantage of South Carolinians without fear of repercussion, or else putting the best system he can in place to pursue those cases he believes have merit — and letting the voters decide whether he steps over the line. Given those options, Mr. McMaster is making a very reasonable choice.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.