Separation of Powers Issue

[POC]

I am not looking to change the law in this area. Personally, there are legislative issues of more importance to me, for which it would not be in my best itnerests to agitate all attorneys, who happen to be legislators. Besides, if there is a problem with it, no law would need changed. It would be a matter of interpeting the existing law that this circumstance is a violation of separation of powers.

From your replies what seems to be at issue is whether the attorney is afforded the liberty to change hats as he does one job and then the other. Does the law not consider him to be an attorney while he is legislator and vice-versa? I don't know the answer to that question, nor do I know if it has been put before a court to consider. I do know that I won't be involved in such a case. But, I am troubled that a legislator has the ability to vote on laws that are likely to affect his clients one way or the other. I would be very distraught to find out my attorney voted against my best interests. At the same time, he may have another client whom he is representing that would be distraught if he were to vote in my best interests.

Thank you for your insight.

[socrateaser]

>One of those limitations falls under an aspect of Due Process.  

Conclusory. Which one? Discuss.

[socrateaser]

> But, I am troubled that a legislator has the
>ability to vote on laws that are likely to affect his clients
>one way or the other. I would be very distraught to find out
>my attorney voted against my best interests. At the same time,
>he may have another client whom he is representing that would
>be distraught if he were to vote in my best interests.

An attorney who has an actual or potential conflict of interest on a legislative issue, which might materially limit the attorney's legal representation of a current client, must either refrain from voting, or withdraw from the client representation.

Failure to do so, violates the Rules of Professional Conduct which may subject the attorney to sanction, suspension or disbarrment.

[POC]

>"Failure to do so, violates the Rules of Professional Conduct
>which may subject the attorney to sanction, suspension or
>disbarrment."

All of those sanctions are self-governing actions of the court. Unilateral limitations do not amount to a separation of power. The fact that such regulations are self-imposed seems to indicate the Court recognizes that attorneys who serve as legislators are likely to represent conflicting interests. When an attorney refrains from voting on such grounds, he fails to represent his constituency. If he drops his client, then the client may have divulged information to a legislator that results in a law that harms the client/constituent, that would not have been divulged to a legislator if not for the trust established through attorney/client privilege. The legislaotr is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

Again, thanks for your insight. But, the issue is still troubling.

[socrateaser]

>All of those sanctions are self-governing actions of the
>court. Unilateral limitations do not amount to a separation of
>power.

Yes, they do amount to a separation of power. The legal profession is generally self-regulating, for obvious reasons. The only means of getting around this is for the legislature to amend the State Constitution to include provisions which the Judiciary cannot avoid by striking them down as unconstitutional under state or federal law.

The court will always protect its own powers as "inherent," if those powers are threatened in any substantial way -- which is what you suggest.

You're tilting at windmills, Don Q. This is a dead end.

[POC]

I understand the Court self-governs, just as the other branches self-govern. But, I don't understand how limiting court members' ability to legislate threatens the Court's inherent power to interpret the law? You don't need to reply to that because I'm not Don Q. and this is not really my issue. But, I do have another question that comes to mind:

Q) Earlier you stated that a legislator/atty could be disbarred for voting on a bill with a conflict of interests. Would asking a judge who presides over CS cases to serve on a legislative child support commission, with the purpose of making recommendations to the Legislature create a similar conflict of interests? I thought it was the AG's responsibility to advise the Executive and Legislative Branches about matters for which there may be legal questions.

[socrateaser]

>Q) Earlier you stated that a legislator/atty could be
>disbarred for voting on a bill with a conflict of interests.
>Would asking a judge who presides over CS cases to serve on a
>legislative child support commission, with the purpose of
>making recommendations to the Legislature create a similar
>conflict of interests? I thought it was the AG's
>responsibility to advise the Executive and Legislative
>Branches about matters for which there may be legal questions.

Judges are subject to a different set of rules than are attorneys, although there are many similarities. Generally, a judge can serve as a member of a group involved in matters relating to administration and/or improvement of law. But, if the judge were serving on a committee which was making law that would have a direct effect on cases currently before the judge or reasonably likely to appear in cases before the judge, then that would create the appearance of impropriaty, would likely be viewed as potentially prejudicial to the judge's rulings, and the judge should withdraw from the committee.

If the judge did not withdraw, then a litigant who knew of the conflict could request that the judge disqualify him/herself from the litigant's case where the law under consideration might reasonably affect the outcome of the case.

Framed in this manner, the judge would probably recuse him/herself.

This is the way it's supposed to work in the ivory tower, but, I ain't the judge, so I can't say for certain how it would come out in any particular circumstance.

[POC]

Would it be okay with you if I posted this most recent reply of yours at the Georgians for Child Support Reform (GACSR) website?

[socrateaser]

>Would it be okay with you if I posted this most recent reply
>of yours at the Georgians for Child Support Reform (GACSR)
>website?

Just use the info and state that it came from someone who wished to remain anonymous.

[POC]

>Just use the info and state that it came from someone who
>wished to remain anonymous.

Thank you. I have done exactly that.