Connecticut Commission on Special Revenue v. Connecticut Freedom of Information Comm’n, 387 A.2d 533, 537 (Conn. 1979).

“The attorney general is in a “unique position . . . . This special status of the attorney general where the people of the state are his clients cannot be disregarded in considering the application of the code of professional responsibility to the conduct of his office.” The court refused to find that the attorney…

Read More →

Hladys v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 366 S.E.2d 98 (Va. 1988)

Assistant attorneys general may represent different state agencies or parts of state agencies. Virginia Supreme Court held, the official conduct of assistant attorneys general is “entitled to a presumption of honesty and fairness no less than that accorded to acts of other public officials” and that without a showing of bias or improper conduct, impartiality…

Read More →

Appeal of Trotzer, 719 A.2d 584 (N.H. 1998).

The supreme court held that it was permissible for one assistant attorney general to represent a medical board in its quasi-judicial capacity and another assistant attorney general to prosecute the case before the board, unless there was a showing of actual bias. In this case, the assistant attorney general acting as the board’s legal counsel…

Read More →

Appeal of Huston, 840 A.2d 773 (N.H. 2003)

In finding that the Attorney General’s office could prosecute claims before the Board of Veterinary Medicine while also counselling the Board, the court held, “Accordingly, public and private attorneys have different ethical obligations in some circumstances. Lawyers under the supervision of the attorney general, for instance, “may be authorized to represent several government agencies in…

Read More →

Holloway v. Ark. State Bd. of Architects, 86 S.W.3d 391 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, Holloway v. Ark. State Bd. of Architects, 101 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. 2003)

In holding that the attorney general did not need to be disqualified, the court stated, “The Model Rules of Professional Conduct contain no specific exemptions for the Attorney General and his assistants. Therefore, as a lawyer and officer of the court, the Attorney General is subject to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. . ….

Read More →

Correia v. Town of Alton, 2008 N.H. Super. LEXIS 19 (N.H. Super. Ct. 2008).

the court stated that even if the assistant attorney general had commingled investigative and adjudicatory functions, the defendant would still need to show “actual bias” through “evidence that [the assistant attorney general] had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case, had become personally embroiled in criticism from [the defendant], had heard evidence in…

Read More →

People v. Waterstone (III), No. 140775 (Mich., June 4, 2010)

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the disqualification of the Attorney General from prosecuting a judge who had previously been represented in a related civil proceeding by another part of the Attorney General’s office. While recognizing that the Attorney General is subject to the rules of professional conduct, the court held that disqualification is not required…

Read More →

Olive v. DeJongh, 2012 V.I. LEXIS 39 (V.I. Super. Ct., Aug. 3, 2012)

Government funds were sought to improve security and parking at the private residence of the governor of the Virgin Islands. The Attorney General’s office wrote an opinion approving the use of government funds for this purpose, and the improvements were made. A taxpayer sued the governor and other state officials, alleging that they had violated…

Read More →

Mallinckrodt US, LLC v. Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection, 2012 Me. Super. LEXIS 146 (Me. Super. Nov. 1, 2012)

In connection with a decision of the Maine Board of Environmental Protection about cleanup of a hazardous waste site, the defendant alleged that the Board erred in not allowing evidence of “the allegedly conflicting roles of the assistant attorney generals who both prosecuted the case and have advised the Board in the past.” The court…

Read More →

Chairperson, Connecticut Medical Examining Board v. Freedom of Information Commission, 310 Conn. 276 (Ct. 2013).

AAG representing Board of Medical Examiners received letter pointing out possible conflict of interest in representation of both the Board and the Commissioner. State supreme court held that the AAG, not the board, would be a party to the conflict to interest claim. Second, the court noted, “[E]ven if the Office of the Attorney General…

Read More →