Under Fire, Bysiewicz Fires Right Back
by Christine Stuart | Jan 15, 2010 5:36pm
(18) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2010
Under fire from bloggers and possible opponents, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is firing back by asking Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to issue a legal opinion about her qualifications as a candidate for attorney general.
The firestorm started when lawyer and blogger Ryan McKeen asked whether Bysiewicz met the 10 years of “active practice” provision required to qualify for attorney general.
Then Rep. Cameron Staples, D-New Haven, who is considering a run for attorney general, told the Hartford Courant that he didn’t think Bysiewicz’s 11 years as Secretary of State counted toward the 10 years of active practice required by the statute.
By Friday evening Bysiewicz attempted to set the record straight. First by verbally asking Blumenthal for an opinion, and secondly by doing her own further legal research into the matter.
“To suggest active practice only refers to private practice is irresponsible, illustrates poor legal judgment, and is ludicrous,” Bysiewicz said in a phone interview Friday evening. She said she’s happy the blogger raised the question, but to suggest the wrong answer is irresponsible.
A student of history, Bysiewicz said George Hinman who served as attorney general from 1915 to 1919, didn’t have any private practice experience. In fact, prior to his election Hinman served as a clerk for the House and the Senate. After serving as attorney general Hinman went onto to become a Supreme Court Justice.
She said if the law is interpreted to only include private practice then Blumenthal would also not have met the 10 years of active practice provision. She said Blumenthal was a U.S. Attorney from 1977-1982 and was in private practice for nine years from 1982-1990.
“I work as a lawyer everyday,” Bysiewicz said. She said she’s a member in good standing of the Connecticut Bar Association and “it doesn’t matter what kind of law you practice.”
She said as Secretary of State she counsels businesses, voters, candidates, and town clerks as the state’s chief elections official. In each of those jobs she is held to a higher ethical standard and could be subjected to bar discipline.
Bysiewicz said her campaign’s legal team is working on writing Blumenthal a formal request for a legal opinion on the statute. While she believes he will issue one, Blumenthal’s office was mum about the possibility of an opinion.
“The Secretary of the State has contacted our office. We have received no formal request for an opinion. We cannot comment further,” Blumenthal said in a statement Friday night.
Not sounding angry or bitter about the dust up, just two days after announcing her campaign, Bysiewicz said she was glad to have the opportunity to talk about her qualifications. And in a letter to McKeen, whose blog may have created the dust up, she thanked him for the opportunity to show the public the kinds of “measured responses that I will provide the people of Connecticut when serving them as Attorney General.”
Click here to read Bysiewicz’s entire letter to McKeen.
(18) Comments
posted by: City Hall Watch | January 16, 2010 7:35am
I don’t believe anybody implied or suggested that the 10 year rule was limited to “private practice.” That’s a straw horse and quite a dishonest attempt to fight back. Being a U.S. Attorney is working in the law everyday and it is hardly comparable to being in the legislature or for that matter as Sec of State. As for being a student of history, I doubt going back that far is relevant in that the law was not written back then. This may be a measured response but it’s not very well reasoned or supported. What does that say about what Susan brings to the table as A.G.?
posted by: middleoftheroad | January 16, 2010 10:29am
The fact that she asked for the opinion says a lot about her strength of position. Bad move.
posted by: Ctkeith | January 16, 2010 11:02am
Using your logic if a woman attorney with 15 yrs experience had a baby in her 8th year as an attorney and took off a year to care for her child she would not be able to run for AG.
How about a man or woman Attorney who was also in the military and spent a tour or two in Iraq before they reached the 10 yr threshhold.
In both cases,as in SBs,as long as they paid to keep the licence fee(or even had it waived for some reason) they are “active” and lose no benifits of their licence.The same is true of Doctors,Nurses,Physical Therapists,Radiologists or even someone who holds a Commercial Driver licence issued by the state.
posted by: CT Jim | January 16, 2010 2:34pm
City Hall, I believe Susan is right here on both counts.
The law was in effect as far as I can disern in 1915
And there is nothing saying that being a US attorney is any different than inforcing election laws.
Fell free to prove me wrong but I think this is all about somebody whining because they would have a tough time winning with Susan in the race.
posted by: ACR | January 16, 2010 4:07pm
If her current job qualifies, why haven’t previous Sect of State been required to hold a law degree?
Either she remained in private practice while serving in the GA, or she didn’t.
If she didn’t, she’s doesn’t qualify and as Sect of State should have known that.
Personally and for strictly political reasons I hope she remains in the race as she strikes me as a disagreeable and weak excuse for a candidate and can’t imagine her winning.
Your mileage may vary.
posted by: PatrickT | January 16, 2010 4:41pm
Oh you silly people. Rules and laws are for little people and Republicans. Pish posh.
posted by: Bob Solomon | January 17, 2010 1:08pm
Susan Bysiewicz’ response is not so much measured as convoluted and self-serving. The legislature could have and, in Bysiewicz’ view, should have, included language for experience similar to practicing law. The statute, however, is limited to practicing law, which is highly regulated and consists of activities open only to those people who have been admitted to practice in CT. The fact that the SOTS office may be and has been held by non-lawyers pretty much establishes that it is not an attorney position and the occupant is not practicing law, no matter how much advice she might give. She may find her way around the statute, but as a pure question of statutory interpretation, this isn’t even close.
posted by: Ctkeith | January 17, 2010 8:43pm
Wouldn’t it be appropriate that someone in the media that helped build this story up to the fever pitch at least print a synopsis of the Journal Corriers finding that the 10 years of active practice are moot because of the 15th amendment to the ct constitution?
You can all figure out how to apologize for the unwarrented harm you did later.
posted by: ACR | January 17, 2010 10:00pm
One would tend to doubt that the office of AG wouldn’t carry with it the requirement that the occupant hold a law license.
What pray tell harm has been done?
Have we hurt the poor woman’s feelings or something?
Heaven forbid.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | January 18, 2010 8:15am
whether or not she has the 10 years will be answered by the Attorney General (politics hopefully will not guide his decision on this question, as it has on others), however, her time as SOS will not count as there is no requirement for a law degree for the job. if the SOS practised law (like the AG) there would be the requirement (like the AG).
HST
posted by: Ctkeith | January 18, 2010 9:01am
Doug,
Could you get someone at your newspaper to fax or email a copy of Cts 15th amendment to Chris Keating over at the Courant.It seems since C areourant Staff no longer allowed to plagerize they have no ability to do research or even keep up with news of the scandals they themselves created with their shoddy reporting.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | January 18, 2010 10:22am
Like some of you, I have done a bit of my own research. In state service, one can only practice law if the job description specifically requires a law degree and membership in the CT bar. There is only one elected official that requires a legal background and that is the Office of the AG.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate, but if we look at the background that Susan herself identifies for us, it is clear she does not have the required 10 years of active practice. Let me be clear - being a legislator is not active practice of law (hence no requirement) and being the SOS is not active practice of law, in fact it is really just an administrative position (hence no requirement).
I suppose the logic for this can be found in the statutes that create the Office of the AG and explain that it is that office that provides legal services for the state agencies, like the SOS. The AG’s office is the State’s law firm.
Question, can she jump back into the Governors race?
HST
posted by: vigilante | January 18, 2010 12:27pm
I’d love to take all bets on Susan’s removal due to this waste of time issue. She’s in the Democratic click, that’s what counts. It’s the Republican Democratic Crime Family that has CT falling off the cliff. Wasting time on nonsense like this won’t help anybody in CT.
posted by: Doug Hardy | January 19, 2010 12:20am
There is an article available on the JI’s Web site (which only costs $1.75 to access for 24 hours by the way) that mentions the 15th amendment of the CT Constitution’s assertion that anyone over he age of 18 is eligible to run for any office. However the piece wasn’t written by a lawyer and the paragraph in question is not attributed.
That said, the state statute appears to be in conflict with that amendment. As I understand it, there is some question about whether it’s the Constitutional amendment or the statute that is used in practice. So there is some debate on this issue. However, none of the folks commenting here - or in any of the news articles on the topic - appear to be able to provide a definitive legal opinion on the matter. The Bysiewicz campaign probably could do itself a huge favor by getting a third party to provide an opinion on this to put it to rest.
posted by: vigilante | January 19, 2010 8:24am
There are plenty of lawyers with 30 or more years of practice who would be terrible as an AG. There might be lawyers with 5 years of practice who would be great as the AG. Susan says she gave legal advice and that is the only criteria for practicing law. This is a stupid subject. She’s a Democrat and it is they who will nominate her. Then the voters can decide. I won’t vote for her. I’ve met her in person 4 times. She refused to give me a straight answer on any issue I raised.
posted by: Ctkeith | January 19, 2010 2:04pm
Doug
I don’t think NYT sellect 2.0 will work either but it does look like your prediction that others will try the old pay for news model is coming true.
posted by: Doug Hardy | January 19, 2010 2:21pm
Yes we noted that over at the JI. It’ll work. It may not work the way Web users want it to work, but that’s fine. If they want the information they’ll need to pay for it. The free web news model for print newspapers has failed miserably. Newspapers that put up the paywall will be lucky to survive the loss of paid circulation that came with the free model.
The JI’s paid circulation decline ended when the paywall went up. It’s actually pretty simple once you look at the post-paywall results.
All that said, it’s difficult for newspapers to compete on the Web with free, online-only sites like this one, but there’s good and bad issues with both models.
posted by: Ctkeith | January 15, 2010 6:02pm
Christine,
If you and your colleagues aren’t embarassed by this entire rediculous episode you certainly should be.