Opinion ID: 1095462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: law legality of ethics commission suit

Text: Only the appellant Anderson has assigned as error on appeal the refusal of the chancellor to dismiss the Ethics Commission suit. The Attorney General with leave of this Court has filed an amicus curiae brief challenging the authority of the Commission to bring its action. We address this serious question at the outset, and a brief factual recitation (omitted above) is in order. The Ethics Commission became concerned with the statutory exceptions contained in Chapter 469, Laws 1983 (The Standards of Conduct Act) to Section 109, and had received requests for advisory opinions from public officials. This concern evolved into a decision by the Commission at its May 10, 1985, meeting to institute a suit against public officers at state, county and municipal levels of government. A subcommittee of the Commission met with the Attorney General and members of his staff a few days later. On June 7, 1985, the Commission identified seven possible defendants, and submitted their names to the Attorney General. Thereafter a difference arose between the Commission and the Attorney General's office as to who should be sued. We credit both sides of this matter with absolute integrity and good faith, and the difference between their views and understanding is not necessary to our resolution of this matter. It is only necessary to note that on November 15, 1985, the Attorney General filed his action, and the Commission, concluding that the Attorney General would not file suit against the other defendants until the first suit was decided, resolved on December 2, 1985, to commence this action. While it is quite true that the Attorney General partially complied with the request of the Commission and did indeed file a suit, it is just as obvious that he chose not to sue other defendants, which thereby would have precluded the judicial resolution of all questions which the Commission had determined needed to be settled. It is also true that the Commission was well within its statutory framework of powers and duties in seeking judicial resolution of all questions. See Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-19 (Supp. 1985). The Commissioners had a right to ask a court of this State to settle the issues, to call upon the Attorney General for assistance, and to file the appropriate action. The Commissioners determined the suit the Attorney General filed did not cover the needed territory. Having made this determination, and concluding that the Attorney General would not assist them until the suit he filed was terminated, they employed counsel and filed suit themselves. Having done so, through their counsel on January 6, 1986, they asked the Attorney General to commence and prosecute this action. The Attorney General responded by letter of January 6, 1986: However, to correctly state the position of this office, I will reiterate that if the lawsuit as filed (the Attorney General's suit) does not accomplish the desired results and it becomes necessary to sue other individuals, such suit will be expeditiously filed and judicially prosecuted. This Court, sitting in review of the facts after development in protracted trial court proceedings, observes that while the Attorney General's suit covers a large portion of these troubling issues, it does not cover them all. Moreover, neither the Commission nor the chancellor when he overruled the Attorney General's motion to dismiss had the benefit of hindsight. [15] We have no difficulty in concluding that both the Commission and the chancellor had every reason to feel the impelling need for this State and our citizens to have the questions raised by the Ethics Commission suit, in addition to the Attorney General's suit, judicially resolved with reasonable judicial dispatch, and not, as the chancellor noted, piecemeal. Under our appellate procedure of pronouncing principles of law no further than necessary to settle the facts of a particular case, we must also conclude, as did the chancellor, that it would be a serious blow to our State if we did not resolve the issues raised by the Ethics Commission suit as well as the Attorney General's suit now. Unquestionably, the Attorney General was the proper party to institute and manage this suit, as he is by common law, statute, and our Constitution the chief legal officer for this State. Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Article 6, Section 173; Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-1; Kennington-Saenger Theaters, Inc. v. State, 196 Miss. 841, 18 So.2d 483 (1944); Capitol Stages, Inc. v. State, 157 Miss. 576, 128 So. 759 (1930). These cases provide that the Attorney General has the power to bring, control and manage the litigation on behalf of the State when the subject matter is determined to be of statewide interest. However, all public officers, including the Attorney General, are subordinate to the laws of this State. See State v. Warren, 254 Miss. 293, 308-309, 180 So.2d 293, 300 (1965) (Attorney General clothed with all common law powers except insofar as they have been expressly restricted or modified by statute or the State constitution.) Thus the question in this case may be stated as follows: When a state agency attempts in a lawful manner to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities charged by statute and calls upon the State's chief legal officer for representation, is the Attorney General obligated to either (1) represent the agency with the same fidelity any client is entitled to be represented, or (2) permit the state agency to secure counsel of its choice? The Attorney General contends that since his authority to bring, manage and control litigation of statewide interests is exclusive, no such authority exists in a state agency. The Attorney General also asserts that whether or not the subject matter is of statewide interest lies within the Attorney General's discretion. The cases cited by the Attorney General are distinguishable from this case. Capitol Stages, Inc. v. State, supra , was a case where a district attorney sought to prevent by injunction a bus line from using the highways of this State. Kennington-Saenger Theaters, Inc. v. State, supra , was a quo warranto suit by a district attorney to oust a theater chain from doing business in this State. These cases presented questions as to whether the district attorney on his own initiative had authority to bring the suit. We held that suits of this nature were not within the framework of laws the district attorney is called upon to enforce, and that the trial court should have dismissed them. There was no state agency involved in either case calling upon a state's attorney to file suit. White v. Lowry, 162 Miss. 751, 139 So. 874 (1932), was a case where the state auditor filed a suit without referring the matter to the Attorney General's office at all. We held no suit should have been filed without first referring the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action. Dunn Construction Co. v. Craig, 191 Miss. 682, 2 So.2d 166 (1941), was a case where the state tax collector filed suit to collect gross income tax, and in that case the Attorney General had indeed refused to file the suit. In that case, however, we held that where there was a statute giving exclusive jurisdiction of collection of the tax to the State Tax Commission, it was not a matter of the official concern of the state tax collector. Dunn would be more apposite to this case had it been the state tax commission rather than the state tax collector which had requested the Attorney General to file suit. As the Attorney General argues, this Court has in the strongest possible terms unequivocally held that it his official prerogative to institute suits on behalf of the State, vouchsafed by our Constitution, our statutory law, and the history of common law. However, while this fundamental precept is indeed entitled to profound respect and deference, none of the decisions cited really cover the precise issue in this case. What we hold today is no departure from those decisions. If this suit was necessary in order for the members of the Commission to properly fulfill the functions and responsibilities with which they were charged, then they were manifestly entitled to have some attorney represent the Commission in pursuing the matter in court. It is just as obvious that they were entitled to an attorney who had no conflict with the lawful purposes they were charged with carrying out, one who could serve such purposes with complete loyalty. The Attorney General is indeed the attorney for the State to represent the people's interest. In representing the people it is his solemn lawful, professional and ethical responsibility to see that a state agency attempting to fulfill a lawful purpose is represented by his office with complete and unswerving fidelity. For in carrying out such lawful responsibilities, the state agency is for all intents and purposes the State of Mississippi and its people. The Attorney General is first and foremost a lawyer, generally among the state's most able, and he, like all lawyers, has an ethical duty to see that his loyalty is never diluted. It therefore follows that while the Attorney General's office in advising state agencies as to the law and whether or not a suit should be filed will almost invariably be persuasive, his advice is not necessarily conclusive. If an Attorney General declines to file a suit referred to him by a state agency, where the matter is of serious concern to state government, then that agency, if it determines its duties and responsibilities so require, is at least entitled to have some court pass upon whether it should have its full day in court. If the court determines that the subject matter of the litigation is one with which the agency is called upon to protect and enforce, then the agency should have its full day in court, which necessarily carries with it the right to have a lawyer represent it. The Attorney General's refusal to represent the agency does not deprive the court of the authority to keep jurisdiction and entertain the suit. On the other hand, if the court determines the suit is outside of the official concern of the state agency, it should dismiss the case. But in event of disagreement, it should be the court, not the Attorney General, which makes the final determination whether or not the agency is representing the people by carrying out lawful functions for which it was created. [16] This suit concerned conduct the Commission was required to supervise, investigate and regulate, and was clearly within the framework of duties the Commission was called upon to carry out. A reading of the Ethics in Government Act makes this plain. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-4-1,  31 (Laws of 1979, Ch. 508; Laws 1982, Ch. 448). We specially note Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-4-1; 25-4-17(h), (i), (j); 25-4-19(b), (g)(i)(ii); 25-4-21. Indeed, it is clear that it was the investigation by the Commission which developed the factual background upon which the Attorney General ultimately based his suit. Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-19(f) and (g) authorize the Commission to employ counsel without reference to the Attorney General in order to file an action to seek restitution. The Commission argues this as one of the reasons it was authorized to institute suit, since restitution was sought in the amended complaint. The Attorney General argues otherwise. While we are inclined to agree with the Commission, we do not base our decision on a technical construction of this section. Rather, we note Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-19(b) and Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-21(e)(iii) specifically authorize the Commission to call upon the Attorney General for assistance in investigation of a public officer's conduct and recovery of civil remedies. It would be meaningless for the statute to provide that the Attorney General could be called upon for assistance, then give him the sole and absolute prerogative whether or not to assist the Commission. The statutory right of a state agency to call upon the chief legal office of this State for assistance carries with it the word meaningful. [17] We believe this decision is in accord with sister states which have been faced with similar questions. In Romulus City Treas. v. Wayne City Drain Comm'r., 413 Mich. 728, 322 N.W.2d 152, 157 (1982), the Michigan Supreme Court also recognized the capacity of public officials to sue commensurate with their public trusts and duties. In State ex rel. Howard v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n. 614 P.2d 45 (Okla. 1980), a state commission being sued requested its own counsel since the Attorney General in that state had a conflicting position. The Oklahoma Supreme Court stated: If, then, the Commission may be brought into court by relators ... under any concept of affording it any semblance of even-handed justice, [the law] must require that it be represented if it so desires, by counsel who can and will ably and conscientiously express its views to the tribunal. Id. at 50. The Howard court also stated that if the object of the suit is to vindicate a public right, and the Attorney General refused to act, an action may be brought in the name of the state by a private citizen in order to protect the interest of the state. See also League of Women Voters v. Board of Comm'rs., 451 Pa. 26, 301 A.2d 797 (1973). We held in Grenada Municipal Separate School District v. Jesco, 449 So.2d 226 (Miss. 1984), that a school district authorized to enter into a contract had the authority to sue for its breach, and there was no necessity that suit be brought by the Attorney General (who had declined to file the action). [18] In State v. Wheatly, 113 Miss. 555, 589, 74 So. 427, 429 (1917), this Court held that a board of supervisors had authority to contest the legality of laws which might cause them to violate their oaths. In the case before us, the Attorney General did have the authority to file and prosecute this suit, but his failure to do so did not deprive the Commission of doing so. As to the contention of Anderson that the membership of the Commission was illegally and unconstitutionally appointed, this constitutes a collateral attack upon the membership, which Anderson cannot do in this proceeding. Miss. Code Ann. § 25-1-37; Trahan v. State Highway Commission, 169 Miss. 732, 151 So. 178 (1933); Cooper v. Moore, 44 Miss. 386 (1870); Upchurch v. City of Oxford, 196 Miss. 339, 17 So.2d 204 (1944).