New Haven Independent

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on January 20, 2010  6:15pm

Don’t trust him. Reminds me of the Batman side kick Boy wonder.

posted by: Anderson Scooper on January 20, 2010  6:40pm

Is Cam Staples even qualified to be Attorney General?

Frankly, I don’t understand how he could be a State Rep for all those years, (my State Rep btw), yet be practicing law on a full-time basis.

Let’s do the math. He’s had an active law license for 20 years, but the last 18 years he spent mainly at the State Capitol. So that’s two years of full—time experience, and 18 years of part-time practice.  Does that meet the statutory requirement that the AG have 10 years of full-time practice. Hmmm….

Cam is definitely in a grey area here, and what’s good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. Maybe we should consider Staples to be officially unqualified until he gets a formal legal ruling saying otherwise?

posted by: Anderson Scooper on January 20, 2010  7:26pm

Cam, I apologize for the straight snark. You’d make a fine AG. But I’m disappointed that you fueled last week’s anti-Bysiewicz fire.

Susie B. has had her law license for 23 years, spent six years in full-time private practice, and of course has served all of us in the State of Connecticut as Secretary of State for nearly twelve years now. Of course that amount to ten years of legal experience, despite your parsing.

posted by: Bob Solomon on January 20, 2010  9:54pm

Sorry, Anderson, but your interpretation of “practicing law” is like saying 20 years as a butcher is the same as practicing medicine for 10 years.  Law, like medicine, is highly regulated.  If a job can legally be held by a non-lawyer, it is not practicing law.  If being Secretary of State qualified as practicing law, then every other SOS (with one exception) was practicing law without a license.  You may not like the statute, you may argue it should be overturned, but it’s there, and, as a matter of statutory construction, this one isn’t close - Susan Bysiewicz has not practiced law in Connecticut for 10 years.

posted by: cedarhillresident on January 20, 2010  9:55pm

Good Luck Cam you have my vote!

posted by: streever on January 20, 2010  10:36pm

scooper, you should do more research for someone who makes a parody of a journalist’s name.

Staples has been a partner in a law firm this whole time. That DOES count as active practice by ANY definition of the law. I know you’re just getting him back for questioning susie’s credentials, but that is part of running for office—people will question you. I think that was a valid question about the actual law and requirements.

The same question was posed about Bolden—it’s an unclear law without clear definitions and even “practicing” lawyers are uncertain what is meant by it. Only you & Susie herself seem to have a firm grasp on it, judging by your comments.

posted by: ward 14 new haven on January 21, 2010  12:32am

THREEFIFTHS, watch it we liked Boy Wonder.
Who do you trust?

posted by: Anderson Scooper on January 21, 2010  12:46am

Bob—

I think you’re wrong on your argument that “if a job can be held by a non-lawyer, it’s not practicing law”. If Ms. Bysiewicz gives legal advice as Secretary of State, the practice book says she is acting as an attorney, and is practicing law. Would she be immune from any claims of malpractice, just b/c she is SOTS?

But in any case, we now know the 10 year statute is clearly unconstitutional, as it goes against CT’s current constitution. Therefore this whole charade is just that,—politics.

As a favor, could you please share with us a definition of “active practice”? Is there a minimum case-load requirement? A minimum number of days actually in court? A minimum number of hours billed? What if the work one did is pro-bono? Is a hundred hours of free legal counsel, “active practice”? (and if your legal work was to help in preparing client’s tax returns, is that really legal practice, since you don’t have to be an attorney to help someone with their taxes?)

Frankly, what I see happening right now is a bunch of you guys taking political advantage of the ambiguity stemming from the fact that there is no legal definition of “active practice”. (many lay-people construe “active practice” as meaning “full-time practice”, and that’s why Ms. Bysiewicz reputation is taking a hit, as she doesn’t have ten years within a firm.)

Anyway, with regard to Mr. Staples I’d still like a full accounting of how many hours he spent each year as my State Rep, versus how many hours he spent actually practicing law.  <snark>

Streever—

My guess is that a court would rule “active practice” to simply be the equivalent of holding an active license. Otherwise what are they going to do? Ask Mr. Staples to bring in his log book for a debate about just how active an attorney he was, each and every year?

And frankly I have no problem with the question that was asked, or the debate. Except that the media turned it into a giant pile-on in which Ms. Bysiewicz’ reputation was damaged disproportionately. Also that it was fueled by the likes of Staples and Jepsen, who could have stood on higher ground.

Also I wonder, do you think that Staples and Jepsen will keep at this, (to the glee of CT GOP Chair Chris Healy), even though they now know that said 10-year statute is clearly unconstitutional? Unfortunately, I do.

But maybe I’m wrong, and both Cam and George will get over to a positive campaign, without feeling the need to tear down our highly educated and very experienced Democratic Secretary of State. Straight negative out-of-the-gate is never a good way to start a campaign. Just ask Merrick Alpert!

posted by: matt on January 21, 2010  1:30am

Streetver, you don’t need to be actively practicing to be a partner in a law firm. You could merely be supervising other attorneys and taking a cut.

posted by: Bob Solomon on January 21, 2010  8:39am

Anderson -

On the two extremes, I do not believe “active practice” means full-time; nor do I believe it means maintaining a license.  I know several people who maintain their license without any practice of law.  In fact, the Occupation Tax form has a box allowing exemption for not practicing law, even though you maintain the license.  Active means on a regular basis, not just as a rare occurrence, and I think a lawyer can accomplish that through pro bono or public service work, but only while serving as a lawyer.  The notion that the SOTS could be served for legal malpractice, as you suggest, is absurd.  Her lawyer, the ATTORNEY GENERAL would file a motion to strike claiming correctly that the SOTS can not be sued in her official capacity because, as a matter of law, she is not acting as a lawyer.  Your major disagreement seems to be on the constitutionality of the statute, and haven’t looked at that, but I really do think it’s pretty clear that serving as SOTS is not practicing law.  You make it sound like its some sort of grudge, but it really comes down to interpreting a statute, and rules, and noone I’ve talked to about this thinks the SOTS is praticing law in er official capacity.

posted by: Will Clark on January 21, 2010  8:51am

Cam will make a great AG!  He has served us well in the legislature where he has served in leadership roles of very important and influential committees.  He has proven to have a keen eye to understand the law and to implement effective legislation to support not only his constituency but all of CT.  He is well regarded by his peers and most importantly effective and a can do guy.

As an attorney I also support Bob’s legal analysis.  Although Susan has certainly offered advice to people related to matters within her office that is not legal advice.  Rather, it is more akin to the head of the Department of Labor or Transportation giving someone advice.  Legal advice and acting as an Attorney (an act performed by others in her office and the AG’s office on her behalf) is something different.  In fact, if her reading of the law is correct, then all of the past SOSs have been breaking the law as all (save one) have been giving the same advice as non-lawyers and have thus been practicing law (per Susie’s reading) without a license which is a crime in CT.

In CT legislator is a part-time job.  Frankly it should be a full time job so that more could be done but that is another story.  Virtually all legislators have full time employment elsewhere.  Many, including Cam and Marty Looney have active law practices as their full time job.  As a colleague of Cam I can state without question that he is a fine attorney who is well respected both in the New Haven and CT Bar Associations.

The fact that Susie would apply a sliding scale of the law when it applies to her insatiable political dreams is troubling.  Would she apply similar standards to the Utility Companies, Health Care Industry and other potential defendants when it suits her?  The office is too important to take that chance.

Cam has proven time and time again to fight for the people of CT and he is the most qualified and appropriate candidate for AG.

Go Cam!!!

Will Clark

posted by: Moti Sandman on January 21, 2010  11:12am

We, as a state need a strong, principled leader to take on this role. Cam’s work on social justice issues, environmental justice, and strong background in matters of finance combined with his knowledge of the political system is a winning combination. I can not think of anyone that fits the description better then Cam.

Moti Sandman

posted by: cba on January 21, 2010  1:15pm

In these trying times, the State of Connecticut needs an individual who can effectively represent the interests of this State and take on the loons
in Washington who try to solicit support for certain bills with modified forms of bribery in direct disregard of the concept of ” general welfare”.  The question for voters is not the so called definition of ” practice of law” but whether the individual is competent for the job.

posted by: Stewart Hutchings on January 21, 2010  1:32pm

I agree 100% with Will clarks comments

Cam Staples will be a great AG. I thinks that he will be as good, if not better then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is consisded to be very good.

posted by: Bob Solomon on January 21, 2010  1:43pm

Re:  cba’s comment. It’s hard to argue against competence being the most important standard, but I think that begs the question.  There’s a law, and I don’t think competence trumps the law. The legislature can amend the law, the Supreme Court can find it to be unconsitutional (much less likely than some people assume), new facts may show additional Bysiewicz practice of law.  Barring one of those events, there’s a law and it is binding on the competent and incompetent alike.

posted by: abg on January 21, 2010  2:21pm

Staples is living in the mental cocoon typical of many Hartford insiders. He apparently thinks that because he’s the chair of the House Finance, Revenue and Bonding committee and a consummate insider up at the Capitol that he’s powerful and important and has a chance at statewide office. I’m sorry but he has virtually zero name recognition even in his own district, no concept of constituent services (I think maybe I got a mailing from him once), and no grasp of retail politics. Of all the hundreds of meetings and community events I’ve attended in the last few years in East Rock I’ve seen him maybe two or three times. When he showed up at the Hooker School dedication it was the first time I’d seen him in months and months. Dick Blumenthal, Dan Malloy, Ned Lamont, and a bunch of other politicos have been more visible in the district that Staples represents than Staples himself. While I can’t think of an issue where he didn’t vote the way I would have wanted him to vote, you’ve got to pay your dues… not only by showing your face at boring meetings, kissing babies, and handing out proclamations, but by stumping for other Democrats up and down the ballot, and rallying the activists who form the base of your party. In the upcoming election where it’s going to pay to be an “outsider,” Cam Staples is going to be the Jim Amann of the AG race, i.e. toast.

posted by: politicaldominoes on January 21, 2010  10:00pm

It is a wild year with all these political slots in play after being logjammed for so long. Cam has chaired some powerful committees and he’s respected in Hartford where he’s done some good things. And he can be very charming when he wants to be. But we tend to only see him around when it’s election time or he wants something. Since he’s had so little challenge over these last 18 years, we haven’t seen that much of him. Whereas Looney has been very responsive, I don’t get the feeling constituent work and nitty gritty issues have been a Staples’ priority. The Attorney General’s post calls for a vocal and deeply engaged champion of constituents’ concerns.

posted by: angelo on January 22, 2010  1:09pm

Alan Felder - we know you’ll support someone who meets your anti-immigrant, right winfg agenda, but aren’t you trying a little too hard to discredit Roland Lemar?  It’s pretty obvious that there are people of all races who will not run for the board of alders because there are too many seats for one person to get anything done and it’s a remarkably inefficient body.  If the board were more manageable, more people would consider it worth the effort. it is you, not Lemar, who interprets “higher quality” as meaning race.  Talk about a (right) knee-jerk reaction!