• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

AG Roy Cooper Refuses to Defend State in HB2

Say Hey Deac said:
Hesitant to weigh in and cause 2&2 to have to take extra blood pressure medicine, but I believe part of Cooper's explanation was that the new legislation conflicts with the existing policies of the State Treasurer's Office (and AG's Office), so to the extent he has clients with adverse legal interests, he is opting to represent his client the Treasurer's Office as opposed to his client the Governor. This does happen from time to time - 2 state agencies will be adverse to each other and the AG's Office can't represent both. Take a deep breath, 2&2, and maybe a swig of mylanta.
Click to expand...

That is bullshit, they do it all the time. I have a case right now with both DOT and (the agency formerly known as) DENR in which their interests are adverse to each other, and one assistant AG represents DOT and another assistant AG represents DENR. They even go so far as to formally plead that service on one of them does not effectuate service on the other, even though they are in the same damn office and probably staring at each other all day, so every pleading has to be served twice on the same office. But that case has no potential personal political gain for Cooper, so no reason for him to make a public refusal and try to smokescreen a conflict.
 
He should've just thrown this case to an assistant AG with no shot at upward mobility and just let them get buried.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
He should've just thrown this case to an assistant AG with no shot at upward mobility and just let them get buried.
Click to expand...

That's what I probably would have done. I don't think resignation was a political option - wouldn't toe stepping pat get to appoint someone?
 
Ball State Deac said:
That's what I probably would have done. I don't think resignation was a political option - wouldn't toe stepping pat get to appoint someone?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think it was still a fine political option for Roy - get out of dodge and say that you couldn't in good conscience defend this law while forcing your opponent to a) name someone to AG, b) defend this inane law that Pat idiotically signed in the first place, and c) spend time finding someone who would take the temporary AG position while knowing that their main task is to defend this law (aka political suicide).

I think it would have been a great political move, but there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yes, but I think it was still a fine political option for Roy - get out of dodge and say that you couldn't in good conscience defend this law while forcing your opponent to a) name someone to AG, b) defend this inane law that Pat idiotically signed in the first place, and c) spend time finding someone who would take the temporary AG position while knowing that their main task is to defend this law (aka political suicide).

I think it would have been a great political move, but there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

People would volunteer to take the job just to defend the law.
 
Oh shiiiiit, 2&2's getting worked up again. Might need to double up on the Prinivil today.

lmmu338.jpg
 
We can probably stop arguing with 2and2.

He legitimately thinks he is more accomplished than the two folks who published that article.

Clearly we are not all operating on the same playing field here.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
We can probably stop arguing with 2and2.

He legitimately thinks he is more accomplished than the two folks who published that article.

Clearly we are not all operating on the same playing field here.
Click to expand...

2 and 2's point about the difference between lawyers who have actually tried cases and pure academics is a good one. This is actually a big problem in the field of practice when you have appellate judges and their academic law clerks reversing cases willy-nilly based on reasoning contrary to the common sense of just about anyone who's ever actually tried a case. There's a huge disconnect there, and it's a problem.

That said, he's clearly failing to recognize the very different ethical obligations between an advocate in private practice and one working for the government.
 
wfumike02 said:
2 and 2's point about the difference between lawyers who have actually tried cases and pure academics is a good one. This is actually a big problem in the field of practice when you have appellate judges and their academic law clerks reversing cases willy-nilly based on reasoning contrary to the common sense of just about anyone who's ever actually tried a case. There's a huge disconnect there, and it's a problem.

That said, he's clearly failing to recognize the very different ethical obligations between an advocate in private practice and one working for the government.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the point he's making about trying cases and pure academics at large, but not in this context. The article is talking about the scope of an AG's duty to defend which is a specific issue of statutory/constitutional (in some rare cases) construction. This isn't some article about "how to try cases about the economic loss doctrine" where theory and practice are not one and the same - the answer to the question of what an AG can, should, or must do is not an issue of trying cases.
 
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I appreciate the point he's making about trying cases and pure academics at large, but not in this context. The article is talking about the scope of an AG's duty to defend which is a specific issue of statutory/constitutional (in some rare cases) construction. This isn't some article about "how to try cases about the economic loss doctrine" where theory and practice are not one and the same - the answer to the question of what an AG can, should, or must do is not an issue of trying cases.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, and that is my main point. The attorneys in the AG's office routinely try cases defending or advancing positions that they may disagree with personally, it just part of the job of any lawyer. In actual practice, the scope of the AG's duty to defend is dealt with on a daily basis using the common sense tactics that go along with any representation, and without the need for grandiose public statements that run contrary to the standard operating procedure of his own damn office. Cooper using the opportunity to make a statement purely for his own personal political gain, while he is still on the job being paid by the taxpayers to do a job that he is refusing to do even though his office would certainly do it were it not for his desired political gain, is what is despicable.
 
None of that has anything to do with whether or not Roy Cooper is absolutely mandated by NC statute (as you have repeatedly asserted) to defend the state. The fact that other attorneys in the AG routinely try cases that they personally disagree with, or the fact that Cooper may or may not have done so in the past has absolutely nothing to do with whether Cooper can decline to defend a law if he so chooses.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sure it is, and that is my main point. The attorneys in the AG's office routinely try cases defending or advancing positions that they may disagree with personally, it just part of the job of any lawyer. In actual practice, the scope of the AG's duty to defend is dealt with on a daily basis using the common sense tactics that go along with any representation, and without the need for grandiose public statements that run contrary to the standard operating procedure of his own damn office. Cooper using the opportunity to make a statement purely for his own personal political gain, while he is still on the job being paid by the taxpayers to do a job that he is refusing to do even though his office would certainly do it were it not for his desired political gain, is what is despicable.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between trying cases defending or advancing positions they disagree with (and I would suggest this happens far less often than you think in public practice), and advancing a position they believe in good faith in their professional opinion to be unconstitutional. That would be unethical for a government lawyer to do. That said, it is fair game to question Cooper's motives here.
 
What about the court appointed attorney hired to defend a murder suspect he knows is guilty ?


Checkmate Bitches !
 
wfumike02 said:
There is a big difference between trying cases defending or advancing positions they disagree with (and I would suggest this happens far less often than you think in public practice), and advancing a position they believe in good faith in their professional opinion to be unconstitutional. That would be unethical for a government lawyer to do. That said, it is fair game to question Cooper's motives here.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's definitely fair game to question his motives but 2&2 is making it sound like this is 1+1 = 2 and everyone else is just an idiot for not agreeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top