by Ryan McKeen
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.