Introduction

Ethics present unique issues for state attorneys general. On the one hand, the model rules drafted with private practitioners in mind often are not a good fit when the AG's "client" is not only the state or a state official, but also the public interest. On the other hand, representation of the public interest may also impose higher standards on state lawyers than on private practitioners who are taught to focus on zealous advocacy for their clients.In an increasingly polarized world, bar rules and ethical charges are increasingly being leveled against AGs for the official actions they take.

Although I would like to think that the theme of every class concerns judgment, in this class we expressly look at ethics as it applies to AGs. The big picture questions are whether the usual lawyer ethical rules do or should apply to AGs, and whether there are additional ethical rules that don't apply to other lawyers but do or should apply to AGs given their role to protect the public interest.

We begin with the Davids article, which addresses the first question. The Weinstein article and the FERC case address the second question. For Weinstein, ask yourself if you see a consistent approach or governing rule.

We then consider a trio of cases that ask who is the client, and when is it proper, if ever, to throw the client under the bus in favor of the public interest -- AL AG Bill Pryor and Chief Justice Roy Moore; MA AG Maura Healy and "who speaks for the children"; and a hapless AZ AAG defending a state prison.

Next, we wade into an over-used word these days -- "weaponization" -- to look at the increasingly recent use of bar complaints and ethics rules to go after AGs and DAs in IN and TX (and MO, NY and GA). Are these complaints proper, and what is the consequence of this new frontier?

Finally, we put all of our new-found knowledge about AGs and ethics into practice with four role-playing hypos.