"x x x.
Facing criminal prosecution over claimed leaking of grand jury information and perjury, Pennsylvania’s attorney general has stayed at work even after her law license was temporarily suspended.
She could still do the job, AG Kathleen Kane said last month, because almost all of her job duties are administrative and policy-making and hence do not require a law license.
But that view was not entirely shared by Kane’s top deputies, shows an October 22 memo made public on Monday by a special state senate committee. In it, Kane’s first deputy and the chiefs of the office’s civil, criminal and public protection unit express concern that they themselves could face legal ethics sanctions if they cooperate with Kane as she engages in conduct that may require a law license, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, PennLive.com and the PittsburghTribune-Review.
“We cannot agree with your assessment that few adjustments to office operations are required during the term of your license suspension,” the prosecutors say at one point, recommending that Kane’s first deputy be put in charge of all decision-making about bringing and settling criminal and civil actions, as well as all decision-making about appeals, grand juries and joining amicus briefs.
“We stand ready to work with you to implement the needed changes,” the group wrote. “Failure to make those changes has already begun to generate serious problems for our agency and the work we do in our various divisions, for our attorneys and also for yourself.”
At the same time, the chiefs said they cannot “foster the unauthorized practice of law,” adding: “Any action that could be construed as you practicing law exposes the attorney staff to disciplinary sanction, either for allowing you to make such a decision or not reporting it.”
The special senate committee is holding a hearing Tuesday to hear from experts whether the Pennsylvania attorney general needs a law license. Its overall mission is to determine whether to attempt to remove Kane from office under an obscure “direct address” provision of the state constitution that allows removal for “reasonable cause,” the Tribune-Review reports.
Although Kane argues that the committee is exceeding its constitutional powers, she also provided a response to the subpoena on Friday. Made public on Monday by the committee, it can be viewed on Scribd and includes a copy of the Oct. 22 letter from the senior prosecutors in Kane’s office.
x x x."
