J'accuse!

While looking for examples of coverage of the allegations against AG Lori Swanson versus coverage of US AG Rachel Paulose I found this post from the Minnesota Lawyer Blog. The comments left mirror many of the allegations in Ms. Lawler's letter to Deputy Olson in her letter dated March 14 (and covered in detail by Gary Gross at LFR). The comments are all anonymous, but given what we know so far it is no secret why!

Anonymous said...
I am one of the attorneys who left the AGO for some of the reasons/concerns raised by Ms. Lawler. It is common knowledge in the Office that both Lori Swanson, as well as her predecessor, would often first decide what kind of lawsuits they wanted to bring (commonly based on whatever topic is hot in the media or being pursued by AGs in other states), assume that there MUST be someone operating in Minnesota to sue in this area, direct the staff attorneys to find a party to sue (or give them the names of parties to sue) and file a complaint within X time period and then orchestrate a big media splash and press conference to publicize the matter. While some people might applaud this as being "proactive," I had the same ethical concerns expressed by Ms. Lawler. Of course, my response to these questionable tactics was to simply leave the Office rather than "stir the pot" so to speak and be subject to involuntary reassignment or other retaliation. It is no wonder that the consumer enforcement division at the AGO (now "complex litigation") had 100% turnover in staff attorneys AND managers while I was employed at the Office. Now the staff attorneys who make up that division are primarily very young lawyers who don't have the experience or courage to challenge or question what they are being told to do, with the exception of Ms. Lawler. Kudos to Ms. Lawler for speaking out even though it will obviously cost her her job.

It is sad that the latest public vetting of the problems at the AGO aren't going to change anything (sorry Mr. Cohen). Believe me when I say that Swanson et al. have convinced themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong despite the continued hemorrhaging of attorneys and negative publicity and will defend their tactics to the death (otherwise known as the 2010 election year).

I would say that "hemorrhaging" is the correct term. According to Ms. Lawlers letter (and confirmed with sources close to the pending investigation) 52 lawyers have left the AGO since Lori Swanson took over. Given that the AGO employed 126 lawyers, that means that roughly 41% of the lawyers in that office let. That is a far greater percentage than left the US AGO which is what led to the initial allegations against Rachel Paulose.

Anonymous said...
Mr. Cohen--Having worked in the Minnesota AGO for several years (but no longer), and having worked on multistate cases, I appreciate what you are saying. AGs, like all politicians, prefer favorable press, and I agree that they sometimes may use less than "best practices" in terms of how they pick what cases to file, if they think they can get good press as a result.
However, I also think that Hatch and Swanson have taken that approach to a whole new level, and not a better one. Their attitude towards cases, in my observation, is much like their attitude towards their attorney staff--we were all interchangeable, like cogs in a wheel. And if one cog happened to manifest any independent thought, judgment or to protest (like Ms. Lawler), then the response was to simply remove the offending cog (or get it to quit) and replace it with another one that would do what it was told to do.
All too often, the Hatch and Swanson regimes have the same cavalier, wholly self-serving approach to case management--once the press glamour wore off on a case (which pretty much happened the day it was filed), then upper management lost interest, tended to not want to put appropriate resources towards it, and often drove the case towards settlement to just get rid of it. This didn't happen every single time, of course, but it happened way too often.
And that's what I hope people understand about this union issue--it's not just an employment law issue, as one high-ranking DFL'er has reportedly stated, but it's an issue about the quality of legal services that the State of Minnesota is getting from its own, in-house legal staff. Because if the staff attorneys aren't allowed to act like attorneys and exercise their professional judgment on behalf of their "client," which ultimately, is state agencies and the people of Minnesota, then the people aren't being served. No matter how many cases the AG files in a month.

Emphasis added. These are questions that seem to be getting asked only on blogs. That is what I was getting at in my last post. There are some serious questions being raised and our local media is curiously silent - someone needs to find out why.

If these allegations are indicative of the troubles at the AGO, then a new set of questions arise. How far down the managerial chain does this attitude go? If it is indicative of all of upper management, then who prosecutes this case? For these are the kinds of cases the AGO should be investigating!