When my husband and I bought our home in Chestertown in 2007, I started moving my litigation law practice to Chestertown. One of the first professional things I did was to join the Kent County Bar Association. Several attorneys made a point of welcoming me to the group. One of those attorneys was Andrew Meehan, who is now running for State’s Attorney. Imagine my surprise therefore when I received a flyer from Harris Murphy’s campaign this weekend that proclaims that Andrew Meehan only joined the Bar Association this year. Nonsense! I have attended Bar Association meeting with Andrew Meehan regularly since I joined, and we even participated together in this year’s Law Day presentations at Radcliffe School.
Harris Murphy’s misstatement led me to read his flyer more carefully. Harris’s flyer claims that he specializes in criminal law, has criminal trial experience, and is in criminal court every week. Of course, he does. His job as an assistant public defender requires him to represent those who have been accused of crimes but cannot afford private counsel. What Harris’s flyer does not say is that he defends those cases he is assigned to defend by the Public Defender and that almost all of those cases have been in district court, which handles only the lowest level criminal cases. Moreover, Harris’s flyer fails to mention that most of Harris’sassigned cases have not resulted in trials; most of them have settled by plea bargains negotiated by Harris.
My real problem with Harris’s flyer is two-fold. First, Harris overlooks the fact that the real job of the State’s Attorney is to set policy to determine which cases will be tried and which cases won’t, to evaluate cases as they arise, and to effectively and efficiently administer an office to do so. There is nothing in Harris’s flyer to suggest he has any experience doing any of those things, including any practical experience developing and prosecuting any cases, civil or criminal. The skill sets for prosecutors and attorneys bringing cases on behalf of plaintiffs are very different than those required by defense attorneys.
Second, there is a very specific ethical requirement in the law about conflict of interest. Simply put, if an attorney has represented a client in the past, he may not be able to represent another client against that former client in the future. Harris’s flyer states that he has represented thousands of criminal defendants in the past. Each one of those thousands is a potential conflict of interest for Harris as State’s Attorney. This means that he may have to recuse himself and be barred from any involvement whatsoever in a case if one of his former clients is involved. The potential devastating effect of these recusals on the efficient operation of the State’s Attorney’s office is plain.
Yours Truly,
Barbara A. Jorgenson
Chestertown
Harris Murphy says
Murphy campaign information accurate… Ms. Jorgenson off base.
I write in response to a letter from Barbara Jorgenson regarding information contained in a campaign mailing that she alleges was not accurate.
As an attorney, Ms. Jorgenson should know that it is important to check facts before making an argument or offering an opinion. However, from the points raised in her letter, it appears that her friendship with my opponent has caused her to ignore that lesson. I will address the issues she raised in turn:
1) Mr. Meehan’s membership in the Kent County Bar Association
Before printing my campaign mailer, I checked the test book in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office to ascertain the date of Mr. Meehan’s admission to the bar association. The test book indicates that Mr. Meehan appeared before the Circuit Court in Kent County on January 13, 2014 and was accepted as a member of the bar association. I was also present in court that day and thought it odd that he had not previously become a member.
So, I suppose one of two things is true: Either he was not a member until this year, as indicated by the test book, or his appearance in court to be accepted as a member, after having already become a member, was strictly for show and a calculated political move.
2) My Criminal Work
Ms. Jorgenson indicates that almost all of the criminal cases I handle have been in District Court. To the extent that that is true, it is solely a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of criminal cases generally are handled in the District Court. Yet, in 2013 alone, I handled 80 cases in Circuit Court. While that may not seem like a lot to Ms. Jorgenson — although I don’t recall ever seeing her in criminal court — she might be surprised to learn that represents over 30% of all the criminal cases filed in Circuit Court that year. So, that’s one attorney (me) — out of all the attorneys in the area who handle criminal cases — who handled approximately 1/3 of the Circuit Court criminal cases.
3) The Real Job of the State’s Attorney
The State’s Attorney should not set “policy” to determine what cases should and should not be prosecuted. The State’s Attorney should evaluate each case on its individual merits and determine how it should be handled. The only way to do that effectively is to have experience handling criminal cases.
4) Potential Conflicts of Interest
This is the only remotely valid point raised in Ms. Jorgenson’s letter. However, she completely mischaracterizes the issue, and, again, has the facts all wrong. Of the 11 years that I have been with the Public Defender’s Office, almost 7 years were spent in Queen Anne’s County — the first 6 years and the last 6 to 7 months, precisely to minimize potential conflict issue.
So, while certain instances of conflict may arise if I am elected State’s Attorney, they are minimal in nature and can easily be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In fact, they are no different from potential conflict issues that arise when any criminal defense attorney goes to work as a prosecutor, or when someone who was a public defender becomes a judge. Both happen all the time.
Additionally, before deciding to run, I sought opinions from the State’s Ethics Commission, The Attorney Grievance Commission, and the State Bar Association Ethic Committee about this precise issue. None of those oversight bodies indicated that my running presented any problem other than on a case-by-case basis.
In closing, all the information in my literature is correct and supported by facts and evidence. I know Ms. Jorgenson is friends with and supports my opponent — a fact she does not explicitly reveal, so it does not surprise me that she would like to minimize my clear advantages in experience and ability. However, facts are facts.
Harris P. Murphy
Candidate for State’s Attorney
Susanne Hayman says
Here is another example why law enforcement (which includes the office of the state’s attorney) and politics are better kept separate.
I happen to know personally both state’s attorney candidates, not only through our shared profession but also because all three of us have attended the same church. I have great respect for both men and consider both highly ethical. If Mr. Murphy made a mistake in relying on the swearing in ceremony and official test book entry as the date of someone’s admission to the local bar, that does not make him a liar or unethical person. And, if a mistake was made, then we have finally solved the mystery whether the formal swearing in ceremony and the court’s test book entry mean anything other than a nice public ritual.
I was still Kent County State’s Attorney when Mr. Murphy tried his first case and it was in Kent County Circuit Court. Out of the gate the rookie did well! (I lost; he won). I also know personally he has experience handling civil cases. And yes, I publicly stated support for his candidacy. His extensive experience as a public defender was one of several reasons why. There are many highly competent judges who hear and decide all kinds of cases and whose prior legal experience was entirely in criminal prosecution, entirely criminal defense, entirely civil litigation, or only in areas of the law that do not involve the courtroom.
Having spent 20 years as a criminal prosecutor and two terms as Kent County’s elected state’s attorney, I disagree with points stated in Ms. Jorgenson’s letter concerning the “real job” of the state’s attorney, what qualifies one for the job, and the assertion that extensive prior experience in criminal defense would result in recusals “potentially devastating” to office operations. After the election perhaps we can meet and have a lively, friendly discussion of our opinions.