Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Pence Attacks One Of Her Law Firm's Clients

Democratic Attorney General candidate Linda Pence has come out swinging against "big oil" and Attorney General Steve Carter for failing to do enough to fight "price gouging" at the pump. "When Hoosier families are wondering about the sudden and uniform increase, it is the responsibility of the attorney general to look into the matter and demand an answer," Pence said. "The people of Indiana need someone who will advocate for their interests and not roll over for big oil." The Louisville Courier-Journal's Lesley Stedman Weidenbener quotes Steve Carter as saying his office investigates every complaint. "He said yesterday that, while investigators have secured refunds for some customers, they've found in other cases that stations had reasons for boosting prices." Her opponent, Deputy Attorney General Greg Zoeller, thinks Pence is playing politics with the issue. "Gas prices are clearly higher than Hoosiers want to pay as they are throughout the country," Zoeller said in a statement. "Pence is playing politics in her role as 'attack dog' for Jill Long Thompson."

After taking a look at Indiana's Lobby Registration Commission records, a big client of Pence's law firm may want to pursue an investigation of her. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, the law firm where Pence is a partner, is registered to lobby the Indiana General Assembly on behalf of the BP Corporation, one of the world's largest oil and gas companies. Pence boasts that she once represented the U.S. Department of Energy in disputes with oil companies. "It is the job of the attorney general not to turn a blind eye to big oil," Pence said. "In this situation, the attorney general should actively investigate the pricing practices in Indiana and why our consumers are treated differently." And it's your firm's client, Ms. Pence. Why don't you just call up your firm's client and ask if they're price gouging consumers?

12 comments:

Vox Populi said...

I think as an attorney you know well that just because you represent a client doesn't mean you agree with that client or are responsible for their actions.

Advance Indiana said...

The loyalty to the client doesn't evaporate when you become a candidate for public office.

Lance Rasmussen said...

So independently owned and operated gas stations are now part of "big oil"? Ooooh. Scary.

mackenzie197 said...

As much as I have questions about Pence, we cannot afford another four years of a completely ineffectual Attorney General's Office. I will gladly support Zoeller over Pence, if Zoeller doesn't promise to continue Carter's do nothing approach to running the AG's office.

jeanniejo said...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley2/patrick103.htm

BRZEZINSKI: OBAMA'S GLOBALIST "RASPUTIN"

".....The informant did not accept the position and reported the incident to Dr. Miles Costick and Congressional authorities including a high level staffer for George Tenet, the then staff director for the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, David Boren.

Unfortunately, David Boren turned out to be a long time socialist protégé of Brzezinksi and like Obama and Brzezinski, an advocate of world government rapprochement with the Communist Chinese and a strong supporter of Islamic terror groups and their aspirations of a world Islamic caliphate. Boren is now the Chancellor of the University of Oklahoma (OU) where he has presided over the deliberate cover-up of numerous Islamic terror attempts emanating out of OU (9/11, OU Bombing) and raised support and money from the Chinese and Muslims to back Obama for President..."

spooknp said...

I think as an attorney you know well that just because you represent a client doesn't mean you agree with that client or are responsible for their actions.

Great. Their money is OK to take, and their issues OK to push for, but _personally_, an attorney doesn't have to agree with the client. We call these people hypocrites.

Lord Peter said...

Great. Their money is OK to take, and their issues OK to push for, but _personally_, an attorney doesn't have to agree with the client. We call these people hypocrites.

So is Carl Brizzi a hypocrite because he was a state public defender and now is a prosecutor?

Diana Vice said...

This is why I could never be an attorney. I couldn't represent the selfish interests of slimy clients at the expense of taxpayers!

True Conservative said...

Diana Vice said...
This is why I could never be an attorney. I couldn't represent the selfish interests of slimy clients at the expense of taxpayers!

I am glad you are not an attorney. I am sure whatever you do you make sure the person who is your customer, client, patient is a saint before your accept them

iPOPA said...

I like somebody who will speak truth to power, even to her own clients. Man, if only Roberto Gonzalez would have been that way.

In contrast, Steve Carter choses to put his head in the sand. He knows from before that a LOT of stations engaged in price gouging, and I bet had her cared to REALLY investigate he would have found the same thing was true here. I have no doubt that price went up, but I bet that every ten cent increase in prices for getting the gas to the stations results in a twenty cent increase at the pump. They pass on higher prices and then some.

Greg said...

Diana, you need to remember that many lawyers went to law school only because they did not have what it took to get a professional job following their undergraduate work. So, on to law school. Ethics and integrity are not requirements. If their lack of integrity is deep enough, they can even be candidates for elected public service. This may sound distasteful, but unfortunately it is true. Because there are no restrictions on the number of lawyers, no vetting regarding ethics, integrity etc., those who are really committed to the good of this country (and there are many) are overshadowed by these bottom feeders.

iPOPA said...

Three retired umpires are talking about which of them was the best in their day. The first says, "I was the best because I called them as I saw 'em." The second one says, "I was the best because I called them LIKE THEY WERE." The third umpire laughs and said, "They weren't nothing until I called them."

I tell this story because the legal system operates on the idea that in the metaphysical sense, none of us REALLY knows what happened until we test the theories of both parties and have either the judge or jury reach a conclusion. America long ago embraced the "adversarial system," and we make both sides bring their best cases because we believe the truth will emerge through the crucible of cross-examination and a properly constructed trial.

There are two types of people in this world: those who respect this process, and those who seriously hate lawyers.

Every lawyer in law school takes professional responsibility, which is about the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, and further, we all are required to have a "fitness" interview as part of the bar process. But this training will never be enough for people who hate lawyers because it doesn't instruct lawyers to forego representing "slimy" people.

The lawyer haters operate with cocksure certainty in every case, which lets them play judge, jury, and executioner of both individuals and corporations.

I can hear those types now. "I would never represent a slimy rapist/murderer. You are deplorable, Barry Scheck!" Then Barry Scheck's DNA project exonerates that person, and we realize that A LOT of innocent people WITH lawyers go to death row. Make lawyers be more selective about who they represent because WE already KNOW their clients are wrongdoers, and this problem gets WORSE, not better. Look at some of the "slimy" people in Indiana who would have spent YEARS in prison without lawyers to prove they were innocent.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/state.php?state=IN

Corporations are even trickier morally because you always have questions of who knew what and when. As often as you have a corporate board acting unscrupulously, you have one or a handful of poorly supervised rogue employees making the entire company look sexist, racist, criminally negligent, or fraudulent.

My point, quite simply, is I wish I was arrogant enough to say I know the truth even without investigating.

The problem is I live in the real world.

www.ipopa.blogspot.com