The Hartford Courant ran a story on a state ethics bill that would allow legislators to use staff attorneys should they ever become involved in an ethics complaint.
Connecticut Common Cause weighed in, and as you might expect, we don't like it.
... the debate at the March 27 ethics panel meeting highlighted a need for "a clear and finite point" up to which taxpayer-funded representation is proper -- and the amendment "draws a line" there. But Common Cause's Sauer said that while he sympathizes with lawmakers' concerns about ethics while under constant scrutiny, "where they've drawn the line now, I don't think it's in the right place."
The Hartford Courant, "Use of State Lawyers in Ethics Cases Backed"
It's not that I don't think there's a place for staff attorneys to assist state and elected officials in ethical matters. Clearly, there is, especially when it comes to ethics compliance.
But, an attorney paid by the state representing a public official who as an individual has come under scrutiny takes things too far. Just as we wouldn't want a town attorney to represent a mayor under investigation, the people of Connecticut wouldn't want staff attorneys representing state and elected officials in an ethics investigation or any other for that matter.
It's easy to understand why a public or elected official would want a staff attorney to represent them, besides the obvious reason that they don't have to pay for it. They know the staff attorney. They've worked with the staff attorney. They trust the staff attorney. And, perhaps by virtue of their position and responsibility to explain ethics laws to their legislative caucus, state office or department, they may have a better handle on state ethics laws than non-state attorneys. But, just like you are not supposed to use public property for personal use, you can't use a state-paid attorney to represent you as an individual.
Consider this example: Elected officials have press aides who help them plan press conferences, write press releases and keep them abreast of what's being reported in the local media. Let's say a state elected official is running for a local office, say mayor of a city, no one would consider it acceptable for that elected official to use their press aide on state time for their local race. They would be required to take a leave of absence.
It's not to say that staff attorneys can get involved in ethical questions as it relates to a specific elected official if it applies to other elected officials for whom they represent. That would be filed under ethics compliance. So, if the Office of State Ethics issued a new conflict of interest decision regarding the public office and their employment, and that decision would impact other legislators, a staff attorney representing those legislators and even the legislator named could question the office and even present counter arguments in an effort to ensure better ethics compliance.
I'm not sure how legislative language could be drafted to define the proper roles of staff attorney. I do know that slipping language in an ethics bill, without a public hearing and at the last minute is not the best way to do craft ethics legislation. It just might create bigger ethical problems down the road.
