Sen. Jon Erpenbach's response to Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

[tanglefoot]

Go Jon!


http://www.facebook.com/JonErpenbach

When he says my attorney, he means "my" attorney as in you claim to be my attorney, but you're not acting like it.

A letter to my attorney sent this morning.

Eric M. McLeod
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
One South Pinckney St
Suite 700
Madison, WI 53703

Dear Mr. McLeod,

I am in receipt of your letter of February 13. I am disappointed to learn that, rather than respond promptly to my request for the entire file on redistricting; you have referred my request to Senator Fitzgerald.

Upon what legal authority do you rely for the proposition that you need not respond to requests for information and work product from other State Senators? If that's part of the retainer agreement your firm has with the Wisconsin State Senate, then I'd like to see that retainer agreement, as well.

I understand that in certain instances a legislative body may seek legal advice and counsel through its majority political leadership. But each State Senator possesses equivalent authority under Wisconsin law to represent his or her constituents and conduct the state's business. In other words, Senator Fitzgerald is first among equals by virtue of his membership in the majority party. That is all.

In this particular situation, as stated in your letter dated February 13, you freely admit that “our client is the Wisconsin State Senate.” The qualifying phrase you added (“acting by its Majority Leader, Scott L. Fitzgerald&quot is not relevant to my request for the redistricting file. Senator Fitzgerald is the Majority Leader, but he is not the leader of the Senate Democrats, who happen to be 16 members of the 33-member body you represent.

You and your firm represent the entire Wisconsin State Senate, of which I am an equal member. We (the entire Wisconsin State Senate) are being sued. Your firm is seeking to suppress, I believe the number to be 84, email correspondences between the majority party and your firm. In that motion, you are claiming attorney client privilege. Really? I’m a client and have yet to see one single thing from you or your firm, let alone any of the documents you are seeking to suppress.

As a client I want to know why you are claiming attorney-client privilege when 16 of your clients have no idea what’s in those emails.

I believe you are obligated to answer these and any other questions I might ask you as your client. Therefore, I am writing for the last time to request that you immediately provide me with the entire redistricting file, including all files, memos, talking points and any and all communications regarding your work on redistricting as an attorney retained by the Wisconsin State Senate to represent, by definition, ALL members of the Wisconsin State Senate.


Sincerely,

Jon Erpenbach
State Senator
27th Senate District

[Scuba]

1. BooWaaah !!! Jon rocks and Best and Co. have absolutely no recourse but to comply.

[sybylla]

2. Someone's filing an ethics complaint against Eric McLeod

www.oldtimeracing.com/OLR.pdf

Guess it's unethical to represent clients who have an inherent conflict of interest (Senate GOPpies) against other clients you represent (Senate Dems).

The complaint points this out using the letter of the law. There are couple of spelling/grammar mistakes, but all in all a worthy project.

[dragonlady]

3. Federal court orders the 84 documents unsealed

A three-judge panel on Thursday told Republican lawmakers to turn over 84 documents to a group of Democrats in a blistering order that said Republicans had engaged in a "shameful" effort to keep its efforts hidden from the public.

The court promptly released the documents, which showed, among other things, that those who drew the maps orchestrated the testimony in favor of the maps for a public hearing that occurred just after they were made available publicly.

"The documents produced by the defendants consist predominantly of a series of email messages discussing the support of certain Hispanic community groups for redistricting legislation and also discussing the floor debates on a pending bill. In the court's view, it is quite apparent that these email discussions involve advice on political strategy, as opposed to legal strategy, and, therefore, are not afforded attorney-client privilege protection," the court wrote.

"Without a doubt, the Legislature made a conscious choice to involve private lawyers in what gives every appearance of an attempt -albeit poorly disguised - to cloak the private machinations of Wisconsin's Republican legislators in the shroud of attorney-client privilege. What could have - indeed should have - been accomplished publicly instead took place in private, in an all but shameful attempt to hide the redistricting process from public scrutiny."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judges-slam-gop-lawmakers-over-redistricting-secrecy-0l47pqm-139467038.htm

[tanglefoot]

5. Saw that last night. Woohoo!

That's one panel of judges they couldn't buy.

[midnight]

4. Good job.....