Explaining its unanimous May 18 ruling that Democratic Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz was unqualified to run for attorney general, the state Supreme Court Friday issued a written decision focusing on the fact that Bysiewicz had never tried a case in court as an attorney.
A state statute says that to hold the office of attorney general, a person needs at least 10 years in the "active practice" of law in Connecticut. Bysiewicz had worked only six years as a corporate lawyer. But she claimed that her 11 years as the state's top official in charge of elections and registering corporations should count, too -- because she said she dispensed legal advice to officials and citizens constantly.
The law doesn't define what "active practice" is -- but the Supreme Court, in today's ruling, stated clearly that it involves experience in litigating cases in court, and that Bysiewicz doesn't qualify.
The full, 34-page decision, written by Justice Flemming Norcott, can be read by clicking here. A concurring opinion from Appellate Court Judge Thomas Bishop, joined by Justice Richard Palmer, can be read by clicking here. Bishop substituted for an absent justice in hearing the case last May along with the rest of the Supreme Court. The political background of the case can be found in this previous blog item. Here are some excerpts from today's decision:
--It is "reasonable to conclude that, in requiring in the same public act that the attorney general be 'an attorney-at-law of at least ten years' active practice at the bar of this state' ..., the legislature intended to ensure that the attorney general would have some experience in litigation."