ILNews

Aspiring attorneys general face off: Other campaigns get the spotlight, but this one deserves a closer look

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
With at least two very closely watched races in Indiana - governor and president - and multiple political theories about how either race will go, there's bound to be less attention paid to some of the other candidates.

But with Republican Gregory Zoeller and Democrat Linda Pence up for the attorney general post and the incumbent Steve Carter not running, this race is worth another look.

At stake is the oversight of the state attorney general's office, basically a very large law firm with 140 lawyers that represent more cases before the state appellate courts than any traditional law firm.

A public law firm

Zoeller compares his current role as chief deputy to the Indiana attorney general to that of managing partner at a law firm. But the attorney general's office would be called a "public law firm," he said.

Similar issues between private law firms and the state office are how they address recruitment and retention of employees and job satisfaction. However, deputy attorneys general typically make less than lawyers at private law firms of similar size.

Other differences are significant, Zoeller said, because "we only have one client, the state of Indiana and the people who live here." He contrasts this with a private law firm that would represent a number of clients and with those clients there is a business interest in terms of the number of billable hours.

Zoeller said that under Carter, the office also has created an emphasis on mediation when possible.

The current administration also has worked with people at various levels of the justice system to explain what it is that they can do to have fewer cases overturned on appeal. For instance, an exchange program between the deputy county prosecutors who work at the trial level and deputy attorneys general who work at the appellate level helps each get to know how the other works and what each could improve.

These exchanges and other information the attorney general's office has shared with county-level prosecutors, police departments, and others who work on cases at the trial level have helped boost the number of successfully defended cases on appeal from about 80 percent under Carter's predecessor to 93 percent now.

"I like to say it's up to county prosecutors to put criminals behind bars and the attorney general office's job to keep them there," he said.

There's merit to working with state agencies early on when they're making decisions to avoid situations that aren't legally defensible," he said.

Zoeller would continue the work he's been doing under Carter but would add a few programs. One program he'd like to implement is something similar to the "Do Not Call" list, which he helped implement under Carter, but would be an opt-in program for parents to protect their children from Internet predators.

A better place for all

While Pence may be unfamiliar intimately with how the office works, she thinks the role of the attorney general should be tougher than it already is. She would also look into what the office outsources and determine what could be done more efficiently.

"It is the top lawyer in the state. ... I think the attorney general must be a leader in analyzing situations, defending and prosecuting lawsuits when appropriate. ... It's primary mission is to make the state a better place for all of us," she said.

Pence comes to the campaign as a litigator who started her career with the U.S. Department of Justice where she worked from 1974 to 1983. She saw what worked in the DOJ's office and has already started thinking about what could be applied to the attorney general's office.

Currently, she's co-chair of the litigation section at Taft Stettinius & Hollister in Indianapolis and decided to run for office because she wanted to give something back to Indiana.

"I want to take this office to a whole other level," she said. "What I will do when I'm attorney general is first to set priorities that have not been set but in my view should be."

Among these priorities is the protection of children when it comes to both child fatalities and children targeted by predators, such as adults who volunteer at schools.

She said she also would take a more offensive stance when it comes to meth labs.

Pence also would take another look at what the state can do to help people facing mortgage fraud, foreclosures, and bankruptcies - especially when it comes to groups that may be more at risk, such as the elderly.

Role of office

While it's not that Zoeller wants these things to continue, he interprets the role of the attorney general's office as one that may sometimes help prosecutors with cases in their counties, but more often than not will leave county-level cases to the county prosecutors unless he's specifically asked for help.

And if there are allegations of fraud, he said the role of the office is to look for patterns and take action when necessary, based on the decision of the Consumer Protection Division.

However, Pence said that the mortgage crisis is something she's known about at least since the first or second year of the current administration, but it's something she doesn't think the office has taken seriously enough.

While Pence has been criticized in the media for having defended clients against the attorney general's office, she disagrees, saying that experience can only make her stronger.

After working as a prosecutor, representing defendants and plaintiffs on the civil side, "I know the tricks," she said.

In response to any concerns there may be about conflicts with former clients, Pence said it's just the nature of being in the practice of law and that they can happen all the time because it's always possible that someone is someone's former client, friend, or relative.

The winner of this race also may depend on the governor's race because Zoeller and incumbent Gov. Mitch Daniels have been publicly supporting each other as Pence and gubernatorial challenger Jill Long Thompson have publicly supported one another.

Or it may not matter.

Former political reporter, lawyer, and commentator who has been paying close attention to this race, Jennifer Wagner, said either way this is a race to watch.

"The two candidates from everything I've heard are raising a fair amount of money for paid media," she said. "This is not a high-profile race, which may mean that it's more in play because people don't know a lot about either candidate. I've been seeing more ads from both. ... A lot of folks are writing off this race, and I think you've got two strong candidates."

Wagner added that there may be more ticket splitting this year considering the close race between McCain and Obama, even though Indiana is traditionally a Republican state.

She added that the fact Pence is a woman may help her, especially if there are people who don't vote for Thompson but still want to vote for a woman.

"That's just pure political theory," Wagner said, adding that Pence and Zoeller's differing views on the role of the office may make a difference to some voters.

"I would guess nine out of 10 people in the general public don't know what the AG does," she said. "While in reality the office is an administrative role, people tend to think the AG is like the district attorney in 'Law & Order,' a courtroom brawler."

For more information about both candidates, including their campaign videos and biographies, visit their Web sites. Zoeller's campaign is available at http://www.z4ag.com; Pence's campaign is at http://www.lindaforag.com. Election Day is Nov. 4. •
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT