Recently, the Washington Post published a story about alleged ethics "issues" surrounding Creigh Deeds. Here's the gist of the Post story with regards to Creigh Deeds:
Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath), who recently joined the law firm of Hirschler Fleischer P.C., a Richmond-based firm with a small lobbying presence. Without the proposed change, Deeds would be violating state ethics rules.Deeds, who describes himself as a small-town rural lawyer, said his losing bid for attorney general in 2005 made it nearly impossible to keep his small practice alive. His plans to run for governor in 2009 will require a more stable income, he said. But he said there will be a firewall between himself and the firm's lobbyists.
Since then, there's been a great deal written on the subject, including this article at Not Larry Sabato. Today, I talked to Creigh Deeds' people and received a thorough explanation of the situation. Please see after the "flip" for the full story from the Deeds' perspective. Personally, I think that Deeds is a good and honest man and that - based on the facts as I understand them - there is no ethics issue here. But please decide for yourself after reading through all the information. The key points are:
1) The Bar's Ethics Committee advised Sen. Deeds's that his employment is ethical.
2) The Bar's Ethics Committee began an exhaustive review of these ethics issues almost two years ago, well before Deeds started at Hirschler Fleisher.
3) Legal Ethics Opinion 1829 does not create or overturn any Rules of Professional Conduct; it is written based on those rules.
Here's the background:
...In 2006 Deeds asked the Bar's Ethics Committee for advice on whether his employment complied with the Rules of Professional conduct. On Feb. 6, an assistant ethics council said his employment complied with ethics rules and referenced [Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion (LEO) 1829]. Deeds has had no other involvement with LEO 1829.
Now, here's detailed information to help clear up any confusion on this matter:
1. The Bar's Ethics Committee advised Sen. Deeds's that his employment is ethical.
The Bar's Ethics Committee is "advising law firms that they can hire sitting lawmakers even if they have lobbyists who engage in activity in Richmond's capital." (Washington Post, 2/16/2007) "A legal ethics opinion applies ethics rules to a hypothetical set of facts and states whether the activity or conduct complies with or violates such ethics rules. The committee will not decide questions of law nor make any factual determinations." ("Request for an Informal Ethics Opinion," Virginia State Bar Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, http://www.vsb.org/s... accessed 2/20/2007)2. The Bar's Ethics Committee began an exhaustive review of these ethics issues almost two years ago, well before Deeds started at Hirschler Fleisher.
The Virginia State Bar Standing Committee on Legal Ethics began work on Legal Ethics Opinion 1829 almost two years ago. (Virginia State Bar Office of Ethics Council) The Bar's Ethics Committee issued a compendium opinion "to determine whether prior legal ethics opinions on the subject of lawyers serving on public bodies needs to be overruled, clarified, or reaffirmed." ("Legal Ethics Opinion 1829," Virginia State Bar Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, 2/23/2007 Draft)3. Legal Ethics Opinion 1829 does not create or overturn any Rules of Professional Conduct; it is written based on those rules.
"The Standing Committee on Legal Ethics was established to issue advisory opinions interpreting and applying the Rules of Professional Conduct." ("Mission Statement," Virginia State Bar Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, http://www.vsb.org/s... accessed 2/20/2007)
So what's the problem here, besides an attempt by Republicans to damage one of the Democratic Party's leaders? I don't see it.
Senator Deeds is a lawyer, and he wants to work for a law firm in Richmond as he intends to run for governor.
Virginia has a part time legislature - he needs to work the rest of the year.
There are many lawyers in the House and Senate, all I would think work for some sort of firm.
The Senator consulted with the Bar Association. The Bar Association says there is no ethical issue. He did his homework. Problem solved.
The rest as you wrote seems to be the Washington Post trying to weave a story together that just does not mesh.
Thanks for taking the time to disect it all.
Personally, I also, know the Senator, and I have total confidence in his judgment. Furthermore, I cannot think of him ever doing anything unethical. The fact he consulted the Bar Association prior to accepting a position demonstrates his consideration to guarantee he is playing by the rules.
The very fact we are having this discussion baffles me!
This is a rather transparent attempt by Republicans in Richmond to tarnish the image of a great Democratic leader, and they are trying to crack our united Party. Not gonna happen!
They are trying to deflect from their own issues - Rerras, Albo, Transportation, et al.
Great job on the research, Lowell!
"I think they should reconsider," Moran said. "It would damage all of us in the legislature to have that potential stink or conflict."
I think that Deeds' actions are quite transparent and unimpeachable -- he requested the ethics review. That said, just because Deeds is a good guy doesn't mean that the ethics rules should be weakened on his behalf. Virginia lobbying and ethics rules are already way too weak, IMHO.
For example, in a proceeding a lawyer for side B may sign an agreement not to disclose confidential financial material from side A that he needs to look at in order to represent his client B. As a former civil prosecutor, there were instances where we had firewalls set up for various reasons because of potential conflicts. I've been at many a lunch where someone started talking about a subject and someone else at the table said: "I can't hear this -- please stop."
As to the legal profession's "ethics" rules, some are designed to stifle competition. In fact, various bar associations have been sued under the antitrust laws for that reason.
"I don't see where there's a problem or even a potential problem," said state Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who voted against Cuccinelli's resolution.
Also, check this out:
Deeds had requested guidance from the bar before accepting the job and was given a letter Feb. 6 indicating that the proposed rule change would "provide the guidance you need" in the matter.With that guidance in hand, a top aide to Deeds said, the senator is comfortable that he is not violating any of the bar's ethical standards. But Deeds spokesman Peter Jackson said the senator will follow whatever guidance he receives from bar officials.
Sounds like this little controversy has run its course. Next subject!
"This is very shocking," said Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax). Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria) said the change would taint all members of the legislature in both parties.
"I think they should reconsider," Moran said. "It would damage all of us in the legislature to have that potential stink or conflict."
It doesn't matter who's right on this matter. This is politics 101 and every candidate is an open target for his actions and words. The voters don't remember or even understand the rationale that is discussed above. What the voters do remember is the Republican's mantra ... Deeds is one of those high-paid "lobbyists". Whether he is or not.
Perception is reality....that's what politics is all about. If I perceive something is amiss, then something is amiss until it is proven otherwise. That's an axiom that every political strategist worth his salt lives by.