Abe Lincoln was a smart man.

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. -Abraham Lincoln, Esq.

It has been a busy week for me. Not a lot of time or energy to post. So I’m going to borrow from a conversation that I had earlier in the week:

“If you owe a bank a thousand dollars…they own you. If you owe a bank millions of dollars…you own them.”

For whatever reason, that stuck with me.  It hits the nail on the head of a number of pressing legal, economic, and political problems that we’re experiencing.

So we’re back to the active thing again. Earlier today, Attorney General Blumenthal weighed in:

…we conclude in response to your second question that the phrase “active practice” means more than simply being a member of the bar of the state in active status.

Attorney General Blumenthal’s opinion is extremely well reasoned and researched. I completely agree with his analysis. He’s right when he says that Connecticut courts have not defined the words “active practice”.

Over the past several weeks, I’ve read lawyers disclaim any idea what it means to be engaged in the active practice of law. Frankly, I’m shocked.

Having given a lot of thought to the issue of what “active practice” means the answer is in part very simple.

What do government lawyers, in house counsel, and lawyers in private practice have in common? They have clients. That’s the lowest common denominator.  The idea that in order to actively practice law requires having clients works in every instance I can think of.

For example, I give you Bob. Bob graduates law school and passes the bar. Bob pays his client security fund fee every year for 20 years. In that time, nobody hires poor Bob.  Bob has never actively practiced law. No matter how popular Bob is, he’s not qualified to serve as attorney general.

And therein lies the problem for Ms. Bysiewicz. Statutorily, the Secretary of State does not have clients.  The Secretary of State is the client.  The client for the attorneys that work for her. And a client to the Attorney General who represents her.

If you’ve got it, please email it to me rmckeen at lttnlaw.com

I haven’t written about baseball on this site in a long time but this topic is too good to pass up.

There are smart people in the Major League Baseball offices wondering if there’s hope of even discussing a potential move of the Rays to New Jersey or Southern Connecticut over certain protests from the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Phillies.  - Peter Gammons, MLB.com 1/22/201o

With all the recent talk of a Springfield-New Haven rail line, how cool would it be to hop on a train in Hartford after work, head down to New Haven, grab some pizza, and watch the Red Sox? A man can dream.

To quote Rogers Hornsby “People ask me what I do all winter when there’s no baseball. I’ll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.”

Whether or not a team ever comes to Connecticut, who knows? It’s probably not going to happen and I blame the Yankees for that. For now, I’m content to read Gammons, drink coffee on a cold January morning, and stare out the window and wait for spring.

I guarantee the media won’t pick up on this one.  Or at least they didn’t the two previous times that I’ve posted this.  But those were made before this site went  Hollywood.

I feel very passionately about this topic. Making superior court decisions available on the google makes our courts more transparent and provides access to Connecticut residents who don’t have the dough to fork down big bucks to Wexis. Connecticut should be very proud of the quality of its superior court judges and the opinions they write.

Two winters ago, I attended a seminar on “What Connecticut Judges Want You To Know.”

In law school I learned that a lawyer should always cite cases from the highest court in the state while writing briefs. It was explained that superior or lower court opinions were useful only to the degree that they explained or applied the rulings of higher courts. All of this is true in theory.

A Superior Court judge in Connecticut is bound to follow the ruling of a higher court (either the CT Supreme Court or the Appellate Court).  A judge is not compelled to follow an opinion of another superior court judge.

At the seminar a panel of judges stressed the importance of citing the opinions of other superior court judges in briefs to the court. The judges explained that they are always interested in reading how their colleagues dealt with an issue.

The point is that decisions of superior court judges in Connecticut matter. They are vital to the practice of law in Connecticut.

The Judicial Branch website makes the opinions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts available online.

Given the importance of trial court decisions in our State, the ease of publication of cases on the internet and the renewed spirit of openness in Connecticut courts I think that it’s time the judicial branch made superior court decisions available online for free on its website.

For the past few days the discussion of Connecticut law and politics has been dominated by the exemption to the Connecticut Client Security Fund Fee. Exciting stuff.

What is the Connecticut Client Security Fund fee? It’s a fee paid by lawyers to:

A) reimburse claims for losses caused by the dishonest conduct of attorneys admitted to the practice of law in this state and incurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship, and (B) provide for crisis intervention and referral assistance to attorneys admitted to the practice of law in this state who suffer from alcohol or other substance abuse problems or gambling problems, or who have behavioral health problems. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-81d.

Every non-exempt attorney in Connecticut presently pays $110 per year into the fund.  Full exemptions are available to attorneys who have retired, are on active duty in the armed services for more than 6 months during the calendar year for which the fee is due, attorneys who have resigned, and attorneys who have been disbarred.

Partial exemptions are available for attorneys who do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation. In that case, the attorney keeps his license active but pays $55.

Here is a link to the Claim of Exemption for the Client Security Fund Fee Form (revised 11/2006). This form is only filled out by attorneys seeking an exemption.

Bring the levity. I’ll be back with regularly scheduled posting on Monday. More to come on the attorney general statute.

I promised Secretary of State Bysiewicz that if she elected to respond, I wouldn’t displace her post for a week. That week is now up. I’ve wanted to post this all week.

Is AI talking about basketball or Connecticut law? I ask. You decide.

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