Bysiewicz Enters AG Race…Sort Of

I think susie was a great potential governor candidate, and I'm disappointed to see her bow out. I'm also disappointed to see her not commit fully to the job. I understand her desire to not engage in speculation, but to not be able to say "I'll do the job for the full term", well, I hear, "I won't do the job".

One thing I have learned about politics is never to speculate about the future because one never knows what the future will bring," Bysiewicz said.

This is why I call it poltricks. Vote Teletubs!!!

Since the Attorney General is the highest ranking lawyer in Connecticut, we should start by asking each candidate about their experience practicing law. Susan Bysiewicz's extensive biography on the Secretary of State's web site devotes two sentences to her role as a lawyer, noting that she practised corporate and international law in NY, banking and corporate law in CT, and health care and pension law for Aetna. In other words, in very limited legal experience, she has represented large corporations. There is no evidence that she ever represented any interests other than wealthy institutions, who often oppose the interests of most of Connecticut's citizens. We know that she wants to be elected to state-wide office, probably as a stepping-stone to other office, but it is not clear why she is qualified to be Attorney General.

Very curious indeed. Wasn't she ahead in the polling? Why would she do this? She has raised the wishy washy flag, telling us she really wasn't committed to being Governor. This is the worst possible move she could make, showing us her insecurity. If she dropped out for a higher office, it would be okay, but to run for a lesser office says volumes.

I agree Our Town/Solomon: I wish she'd consulted us first :)

What are her qualifications to be Attorney General? Has she ever been in a courtroom and tried a case as an advocate for one side to conclusion ? This is a post that should not be a promotion for any career politician prefaced on longevity in the system, since it requires an individual who must litigate and protect the interests of the State. Connecticut residents should demand that this individual and others for this post answer the questions about qualification and experience, after all no one wants a Judge Judy as our legal advocate!!

WTNH is reporting Ms. B may not qualify as AG because she has not been an active member of the CT Bar for a minimum of 10 years - reportedly, she has practiced for 8. Then again, she could do what New Haven City Attorney Bolden does with the blessings of the Administration, IGNORE IT! Hey, it's only a law for the little people.

Good Grief.

Ms. Bysiewicz has been a member of the CT Bar since 1986. And she has been Secretary of the State of Connecticut since 1998.

This debate about her "qualifications" is nothing more than an orchestrated smear campaign, and we should get back to issues that actually matter to us.

I guess it would help if the Republicans actually found a candidate of their own. And the Jepsen camp should get a life. If they think the way to victory is to tear down the reputation of Susie B., maybe they're the side that isn't qualified for the office.

I'm just shocked, shocked that a politician would ever be ambitious or Machiavellian. Stop the presses! Thanks to Dick Blumenthal's example the AG office is now the preferred springboard to higher office, and not just in CT. Call it wishful thinking but I'd like to believe that this is not only a self-serving move on Bysiewicz's part but also a sign that the Democrats are going to sort out as much of their business as possible before the convention. It's going to be a difficult election for Democrats - why make it any worse by having lots of fractious primaries with multiple candidates? There are still too many people running for governor, and the last thing we need is a chaotic convention and a bunch of free-spending candidates killing each other with attack ads down the stretch while the teabaggers watch and laugh. Democrats need to sort things out ASAP and unite behind a nominee.

Blumie followed Joe Lieberman's example. He was the first.

Before Lieberman, the AG job was part-time, so it was a different world. As for Lieberman's practicing law for 10 years, while a state legislator, he remained a partner in a New Haven law firm. (I have no idea what he did or did not do.) The notion that the Secretary of State job is practicing law strikes me as odd, and probably wrong. For one thing, the Secretary of State does not have to be a lawyer, and practicing law is highly regulated. When I served as the executive director of the Housing Authority, it was quite clear to me and others that I was the client and not the lawyer. It is equally clear that the AG IS the lawyer for the Secretary of State and other state officials. So, even if Susan Bysiewicz considered herself to be "supervising" lawyers on her staff, I do not believe she was practicing law within the meaning of the statute. As an aside, remaining actice and filing occupation tax returns is not evidence of practicing law, just that the filer chose to remain an active member of the bar. Since the SOTS does not have to pay the occupation tax, it's a matter of checking off a few boxes once a year.

The following reply appears on:
http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2010/01/susan-bysiewicz-responds/

Susan Bysiewicz Responds

Dear Attorney McKeen,

Thank you for the invitation to respond to your comments and questions. While I’ll be the first to admit that this was not how I planned to spend my first few days as a candidate for Attorney General, I believe the question was reasonable given the very vague wording of the statute. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond. My only regret is that there were several media outlets that ran with a “story” before they had all the facts – before they did the proper research and before they gave me time to respond.

The office of Attorney General is one of the most active and professionally demanding in our state government. Connnecticut’s legal system has been fortunate to benefit from twenty years of outstanding service by one of the nation’s premier Attorneys General, my friend Richard Blumenthal. After two decades of such strong service, we need an Attorney General capable of filling the shoes left by Richard, an Attorney General not just qualified for the office, but ready for its challenging blend of legal practice and large organizational management. I am the only candidate with the experience we need to take on that role starting on Day One.

For over twenty years, I have been honored to actively practice law in Connecticut as a member in good standing of the Connecticut bar. My strong and diverse legal qualifications include 8 years in private practice, and 16 years in public service as an attorney, first as a state legislator and later, as Secretary of the State. There is no legal basis to conclude that “active practice at the bar of this state” excludes those attorneys who are practicing in the public or corporate arenas. To interpret “active practice” to mean only private practice would be a mistake.

Over the years I have made all filings and paid fees consistent with the filings and fees paid by other practicing attorneys in the state, including the client security fund payment and the attorney occupational tax return. I am also registered on the State of CT Judicial web site as an active attorney in the State.

This makes me eligible for the office of Attorney General. Furthermore, please review the definition of the “practice of law” in the Connecticut Practice Book, which governs attorney conduct in the state which demonstrates that, in my service as Secretary of the State, I am clearly practicing law. The relevant section is: Sec. 2-44A(a)(2), which includes as “practice of law”:

Giving advice or counsel to persons concerning or with respect to their legal rights or responsibilities or with regard to any matter involving the application of legal principles to rights, duties, obligations or liabilities.

My daily and active role in counseling businesses, voters, candidates, and elections officials on their rights and duties easily qualifies me as subject to bar discipline for these aspects of my Secretary of the State role. That is to say, I am practicing law when I do this. This is not to suggest that this means only a lawyer can be the Secretary of the State; rather, what it means is that any member of the bar who becomes Secretary of the State will be considered by the bar authorities to be “practicing law” and thus needs to go above and beyond a non-attorney Secretary in terms of adhering to the bar rules in his or her work. This is standard; the bar authorities often impose additional ethical and other obligations on attorneys who are doing things that ordinary citizens also might do.

The subject of this question has become a perfect illustration of a key part of the job of the Attorney General: interpreting the practical application of the law of the State of Connecticut. I view this as an opportunity to preview the comprehensive, measured responses that I will provide the people of Connecticut when serving them as Attorney General and I thank you for that opportunity.

Throughout the campaign, I invite a thorough review of both my qualifications for office, as well as my technical eligibility. I am confident that, upon close examination, the voters of Connecticut will see that I am the best qualified candidate to serve as their next Attorney General.

by Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State of Connecticut

Candidate for Attorney General

Bysie pulled a fast one. She was the clear frontrunner for the gov. job. But it appears she wants the job of Multi-Partisan Joe in 2012. And even though I think she did pull a fast one, I think she is the kind of cat fighter who could take out wily ole Joe. Joe still has a lot of tricks up his sleeve and it's time to get someone in the pipeline who can make mincemeat of him in a toe-to-toe fight. Bysie can do that. I don't see anyone else out there who could.