- Israel hits symbols of Hamas rule; scores killed
- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Middle Eastern firm’s deal to manage U.S. cargo port raises security concerns
- Bob McDonnell’s defense: Lonely wife developed ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House Republicans unveil bill to speed deportations of border children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
SHAPIRO: Wendy Davis’ attorney-candidate conflicts
Texan’s dual role could raise ethics questions
Question of the Day
Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis is not the first lawyer faced with conflict-of-interest allegations, but her decision as a state senator to represent the North Texas Tollway Authority while voting on toll-related legislation could raise eyebrows at the state bar association or the ethics commission.
Ms. Davis‘ situation illuminates a common problem that elected officials may face because so many of them are also lawyers and cannot afford to abandon their law practices while in public office. The Democratic state senator garnered attention in June, when she conducted a filibuster to delay a vote on abortion legislation.
Ms. Davis opened her law firm in 2010 with Brian Newby, Gov. Rick Perry’s former chief of staff, to help companies trying to do business with public entities. She initially insisted she would not have to recuse herself from state Senate votes, which is required by the Texas Constitution, when potential conflicts of interest arise.
Articles by The Dallas Morning News’ investigative reporter, Wayne Slater, note that she has not done so.
“My stories clearly show that she has voted in cases that on the face of them are conflicts of interest,” Mr. Slater told The Washington Times via telephone. “She has voted on legislation affecting her client, who pays her, and that’s a fact. The question is whether that’s illegal, and we certainly haven’t said that. It’s something of a gray area as to what’s permitted.”
That gray area means that many politicians’ voting records might demonstrate a conflict of interest, but that does not mean their votes are indeed illegal.
“It has long been interpreted that, if you vote on legislation that affects a whole class of people or affects everyone similarly situated in that industry, then it may be a conflict of interest, but it’s not necessarily against the law,” Mr. Slater said.
Ms. Davis‘ potential problems may not fall under Texas criminal law, but rather the Texas State Bar, which monitors lawyers’ conduct, and the Texas Ethics Commission, which polices the activities of paid public officials.
Potential conflicts of interest can spell trouble for lawyers and politicians because even the appearance of impropriety can trigger an investigation.
At the start of her law firm, Ms. Davis told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that there would not be any possibility of conflicts, saying: “I will not represent anyone on any issues that come before the state.”
Ms. Davis‘ current woes stem from her representation of the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) while also voting for toll-collection legislation backed by the authority. In one instance, she reportedly billed the authority for condemnation work on the same day she voted for toll legislation.
In 2011, she said that her work for the toll authority had “absolutely no conflict whatsoever.”
The Dallas Morning News countered that point in an editorial Monday: “It’s one thing for an attorney to aggressively represent a client and something else when that lawyer sits on the powerful Senate Transportation Committee. A bureaucrat’s dilemma: Is that angry caller Wendy Davis, state senator, or Wendy Davis, NTTA attorney?”
Rule 1.06 of the Texas Disciplinary Bar Rules of Conduct states that “a lawyer shall not represent a person if representation of that person reasonably appears to become adversely limited by the lawyer’s or law firm’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer’s or law firm’s own interest.”
Rule 1.10, which covers “successive government and private employment,” states: “Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer serving as a public officer or employee shall not [n]egotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as attorney for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially.”
About the Author
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a nationally recognized investigative journalist and a former Washington, D.C., prosecutor. He is currently general counsel for MDB International, a D.C.-based international investigations firm, and a legal analyst for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- SHAPIRO & ANDREWS: Declaring war on the cartels
- Russia could lose sovereign immunity if implicated in Flight 17 downing
- Moscow: Continue U.S. cooperation in space
- SHAPIRO: Thomas Jefferson's Monticello welcomes naturalized immigrants on Fourth of July
- ANALYSIS: Benghazi prosecution faces legal rights minefield
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Inside the Beltway: Immigration rage festers on all sides
- Obama's brother wears Hamas scarf bearing anti-Israel slogans in photo
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Obama: 'Not a new Cold War,' but new Russia sanctions announced
- Hillary Clinton: I was indeed 'dead broke,' but shouldn't have said so