Perkins Coie takes on Salem

Certain law firms in Oregon are notorious hot beds of political activity. Stoel Rives produced retiring Attorney General Hardy Myers and the man who wants to succeed him, State Rep. Greg Macpherson. Former State Rep. Max Williams worked for Miller Nash during his days in the legislature. Tonkon Torp has lobbyist Jack Isselmann working the halls of the capital and Davis Wright Tremaine has lobbyist John DiLorenzo.

But there seems to be a new ring leader in town. Perkins Coie, a major Pacific Northwest law firm with a huge office in Portland, appears to be extending its tentacles around Oregon state government: associates Brent Barton and Chris Garrett recently announced their candidacies for the State House; and chief litigator Michael Simon has been distributing mass amounts of campaign cash to state candidates like he’s Willy Wonka at the local candy store -- not to mention he’s married to incumbent State Rep. Suzanne Bonamici. More importantly, the firm has an active government relations team that boasts of spending “years understanding how government works and developing relationships with its decision makers.”

Should Barton and Garrett be successful in their bids for the legislature Perkins Coie will have a very special relationship with these decision makers, raising an interesting question: is there an ethical conflict for a law firm to employ two sitting legislators while having an active government relations programs that lobbies the state on behalf of their clients?

Typically, there is no conflict for a law firm to employ a legislator as long as the legislator is performing his or her work in a capacity other than as a legislator and the he or she is being compensated for the actual value of the work performed.

But, can a concrete wall dividing legislative from legal work ever really exist?

Garrett’s own online resume points to his representation of “Oregon legislative leaders in constitutional litigation related to education funding.” He goes on to lay claim to “frequently advising elected officials, candidates, and organizations on maters of constitutional and election law.” So, at what point does his legal work end and his legislative work begin?

Garrett could certainly conflict himself out of voting on any legislation that would directly benefit any business entities in which he or the firm represents, but there is no law keeping him from walking into the offices of other legislators and shedding some of his legal “perspective” on their votes.

It’s possible that Oregonians have looked the other way in recent years when lawyer/legislators (some might offer persuasive arguments that it’s essentially lobbyist/legislator) have an appearance of a conflict – maybe that’s the price we pay to get smart people to serve in the Legislature. But how far off is Oregon from becoming like, say California, where lawyers run for office because it’s a great way to generate business for their firm?