In addition to that post, I would like to point out the following string of logic:
- any conflicted representation is a discipilnary violation that may ultimately cause (depending on the degree of conflict) sanctions against a licensed attorneys and revocation of the attorney's license;
- all State Attorneys General are required by statutory law to be licensed attorneys;
- all state legislatures are run by attorneys;
- state legislatures enacted attorney licensing schemes that violate separation of power and antitrust laws, putting attorney regulation in the hands of private attorneys and judges who are also required to be licensed attorneys;
- state legislatures enacted statutes governing duties of the State Attorneys General that require Attorneys General to both enforce laws and protect state actors from enforcement of laws against them by members of the public when such a private enforcement is allowed by state or federal statutory law (the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983);
- so, the state legislatures, run by lawyers, require that State Attorney Generals be lawyers, that only lawyers regulate the law licenses of the State Attorneys General, and that the State Attorney General must engage in a conflicted representation that at any time may become the subject of a discipinary prosecution and lead to revocation of the law license of the State Attorney General - and removal of the AG from office as not fulfilling the requirement of being a licensed attorney.
With such an axe over their heads, there is no wonder that no state Attorney General as yet even tried to raise the issue that they SHOULD NOT, ethically, represent state actors against private citizens in civil rights actions alleging violations of constitutional rights, because the AG was elected to protect people, not protect those who violate people's constitutional rights.
Yet, such a statutory scheme that puts an elected public official in constant apprehension of suspension of her or his livelihood of a lifetime if she steps out of line with private interests is nothing less than a criminal trick.
And I wonder when the People, the true sovereigns of their states, change their state Constitutions prohibiting attorney licensing BECAUSE of the problems with
- undermining democracy,
- blocking access to court,
- preventing independence representation in court,
- undermining the will of voters to elect individuals of their choice to public office, and
- interfering with proper investigation and prosecution of crimes in states, and especially the most heinous crimes that do the most damage to the public, the crimes of corruption in public office