Opinion ID: 2785000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: advisory opinion on question two

Text: [¶32] We are called upon here to interpret the statute through which the Legislature has required that the Attorney General “shall appear for the State” in litigation and that those “proceedings must be prosecuted or defended by the Attorney General or under the Attorney General’s direction.” 5 M.R.S. § 191(3). [¶33] We recognize the independence of the Attorney General’s office, see Superintendent of Ins., 558 A.2d at 1199-1200, 1202, as well as the authority of that office to oppose the Executive Branch in litigation, see id. at 1204. This is neither new nor unique to the State of Maine. See supra n.3. [¶34] It is our shared opinion, however, that, once the Attorney General approves the employment of private counsel for a state entity and opposes that entity in litigation, the Attorney General is no longer appearing for the state entity and therefore is no longer authorized to direct or manage that entity’s litigation or strategy. See 5 M.R.S. § 191(3). We have found nothing in the Maine Constitution, Maine statutes, or Maine common law that requires or authorizes the Attorney General in such circumstances to review, audit, or oversee the specific duration of representation, the legal fees charged, or other aspects of the relationship between the state entity and private counsel. 17 [¶35] Indeed, the Attorney General may agree that it would be inappropriate for her office to manage or control the litigation of the Executive Branch once her office has taken an opposing position in the litigation.5 The Attorney General and the Governor may, therefore, agree that the Attorney General is not authorized to provide “direction” for the Executive Branch’s litigation, but disagree about whether the durational and financial review and limitations described in the communications from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General constitute “direction” of the litigation. Id. Because of this area of disagreement, we announce our understanding of the meaning of the statute. [¶36] In our opinion, although the Executive Branch may choose to seek the advice of the Attorney General or members of her office in managing the costs of litigation, and the Attorney General may provide such advice as she deems appropriate, no such advice is a prerequisite to continued private representation. Once the Attorney General has initially authorized the Executive Branch to employ private counsel and has taken an opposing position in litigation, authorization for the continued representation of the Executive Branch by private counsel is not required. Simply put, it is our opinion that the Attorney General cannot formally 5 In response to the question of whether the Attorney General “has the authority to cap or otherwise limit the funds that the Governor can spend in litigation” when the Attorney General has declined to represent the agency and is participating in the proceeding as an opponent, the Assistant Attorney General who presented oral argument stated, “If it were going to restrain what the private counsel could do to advance that argument, no, but that’s not what’s been attempted here . . . .” 18 oppose the Executive Branch’s litigation position and, at the same time, direct the Executive Branch’s litigation through fiscal or other periodic review of the Executive Branch’s private counsel. See id. [¶37] Thus, in our opinion, the answer to Question Two is “No.” When the Attorney General has declined to represent the Executive Branch and has taken a contrary litigation position, the Attorney General is no longer directing the litigation of the Executive Branch. See id. Neither Maine’s Constitution nor its statutes or common law require or authorize the Attorney General to manage or direct the Executive Branch’s litigation once the Attorney General has authorized the Branch to employ private counsel and has taken an opposing position in the litigation. [¶38] We offer this advisory opinion to enable the Governor and all State actors involved to continue to conduct themselves in the interests of the people of Maine, consistent with the Maine Constitution, statutes, and common law. Signed: March 10, 2015 For the Justices, /s/ LEIGH I. SAUFLEY