OPINION: Did taxpayers benefit from the Attorney General’s ‘resounding victory?’

Attorney General Raul Labrador recently claimed a “resounding victory” when District Judge Lynn Norton only required his office to pay a portion of the lawyer fees racked up in a suit with employees of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). The judge awarded the employees only $9,500 of their $186,000 fee request. The outcome was not a victory for Idaho taxpayers, however, because the full fee request had already been paid by the state, just out of a different state account.

The dispute arose when Labrador demanded that the employees hand over copious documents relating to a child care grant program. That led to a lawsuit in which the employees claimed Labrador had violated lawyer ethical rules by demanding the documents. After all, he was their lawyer. Labrador offered no evidence of employee misconduct, resulting in dismissal of the demands. Since the matter did not go to trial, the Judge declined to award most of the employees’ fee request.

The judge awarded the $9,500 to the employees for their successful request to disqualify Labrador’s office from pursuing the demands. The judge ruled that since the employees worked for IDHW, Labrador “did not have a reasonable basis in fact or law” to oppose their “request to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office from taking a position adverse to his prior legal opinions that were issued to IDHW as a client.”

The state ended up paying for all lawyers involved in the case, including the one who handled and then dismissed the case for Labrador’s office. The AG’s “resounding victory” spin does not hold up when the whole truth is known.

This is just one case where Labrador’s unjustified actions have and will continue to cost taxpayers and enrich private lawyers. He had to fork over $80,000 for writing improper ballot titles for the Open Primaries Initiative. On March 26, Labrador was ordered to pay $240,000 in costs and fees for his ill-fated Open Meeting lawsuit against the Idaho State Board of Education involving the University of Phoenix deal. Once again, Labrador sued one of his clients in violation of lawyer ethical rules. Once again, he was disqualified from handling the case. Once again, the action he challenged had been okayed by a deputy AG. And, once again, the state ended up paying for all lawyers involved in the case.

Idaho has paid out over $500,000 to the other side of these cases just to lose. This does not count what it has cost the Attorney General’s Office to prosecute its side of the cases, which may be a comparable amount. As former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen is attributed to have said, “A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.”

Labrador will likely end up having to pay a substantial legal bill for litigation currently in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 27, Labrador’s Solicitor General, Alan Hurst, had an embarrassing time trying to explain to the Court why an opinion written by Labrador should not be taken at face value.

The opinion letter said that Idaho doctors could be prosecuted for referring women out of state for abortion services. Labrador withdrew the letter once it became public, but has refused to repudiate it. Because of that the federal district judge in Idaho entered an injunction against enforcement of the opinion letter. Hurst admitted to the Circuit Court that it might look like Labrador “is trying to be cute or trying to have it both ways.” Amen. It is really not a good thing to try to sell a bill of goods to a court, particularly a federal appeals court. Count on a hefty award of fees against the state for this clumsy footwork.

Tom Arkoosh

There are any number of other instances where the state may suffer exposure to lawsuits and attorney fees awards for legal challenges resulting from unconstitutional legislation currently being churned out by Labrador’s extremist friends in the Idaho Legislature – library restraints and transgender discrimination, to name just two. Labrador promised that he would stop legislators from pursuing unconstitutional legislation, but has failed to deliver on that promise. The Idaho treasury will feel the impact.

—

Tom Arkoosh is a Gooding native and a Boise attorney. His law career has spanned over 40 years, specializing in water law, civil litigation, criminal and administrative law, commercial work and public affairs. Arkoosh was the Democratic candidate for Idaho attorney general in 2022.