December 23, 2006
What I meant to say
During the Attorney General's race, J.B. Van Hollen railed against Peg Lautenslager for bringing "frivilous law suits like one against a cranberry farmer who is allegedly polluting a lake." As you know, it turns out Van Hollen's law firm was represnting that polluting farmer. "Oops!" said Van Hollen, "I didn't know my firm was involved." Yah, sure Ole.
Did your firm know? Did they warn you? Of all the things you could say against Peg, and you and WMC said a lot, how did this case come to your attention? The DOJ has hundreds of cases. Why this one?
Now, his new deputy says, Van Hollen won't get involved in matters being handled by his former firm. Is it really his former firm? The managing partner of the firm admits they discused his probable race for AG in the Spring of 2005 so they limited him to "cases that [would not] involve the DOJ or that could go to the DOJ." And, I'm not making this up, "mostly divorce cases and criminal defense matters."
The primary was in September of 2006 and Van Hollen was in a tough battle with Paul Bucher. Van Hollen is making himself unavailable to the media, presumably so he won't have to answer tough questions. Here are a few: A) How much were you paid to handle divorce and criminal defense cases between Spring of 2005 and the primary? B) Did your compensation change after you beat Bucher? C) You say you won't be involved in matters handled by your former firm. How will you know and who will do the checking for conflicts? D) Any chance you could put this in writing?
Ah, "what tangled webs we weave..."
post a letter about this blog »