AG’S ADVISORY OPINION DOES NOT CLEAR ETHICS COMPLAINTS AGAINST SENATORS STOLLE AND NORMENT

[Gopher Broke]

G. DAVID NIXON, Attorney at Law Roanoke, VA

For Immediate Release

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY OPINION DOES NOT CLEAR ETHICS COMPLAINTS AGAINST SENATORS STOLLE AND NORMENT ----------------------- Stolle misrepresents his law firm’s representation of condemnors

Contact: David Nixon 540-982-1700, ext. 307 (daytime) or 540-345-4645 (evening) dnixon52@aol.com

Roanoke, VA (February 12, 2007) – An advisory opinion from Virginia’s Attorney General released by Sen. Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R-James City) to the media does not clear him or Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) from ethics complaints filed against the two regarding their law firm’s representation of condemning authorities and their roles in defeating meaningful eminent domain reform in the Virginia Senate.

In addition, in interviews with the media, Stolle has stated that, “…to the best of my knowledge, the firm [Kaufman & Canoles] only represents landowners.” The fact is, there are at least 13 high profile condemnation cases currently in Virginia courts where Kaufman & Canoles is representing the condemnor.

The firm’s website also clearly states, “Defending local governments from civil rights and constitutional claims comprises a considerable part of our Municipal Law Practice Group focus. The claims have involved representation of municipalities or municipal officers in the areas of: …unlawful taking of private property [ie. eminent domain condemnation]…”

The ethics complaint states that Senators whose livelihoods depend on them and their law firm representing condemnors should not be voting on eminent domain legislation that benefits their clients, much less sitting on committees that craft such legislation, and writing and introducing the legislation themselves.

Attorney General’s advisory opinion letter does not address complaint

The Senators maintain that the Attorney General’s advisory opinion clears them of any ethical wrongdoing in the Senate concerning the fact that their law firm, Kaufman & Canoles (K&C), represents condemnors. That is not true.

The advisory portion of the AG opinion deals solely with Section 30-108 of the General Assembly Conflicts of Interests Act and the phrase “personal interest in a transaction” contained in that section. The complaints filed against Norment and Stolle are not based upon 30-108 and never mention that code section. The allegations in those complaints fall under Section 30-103 (3), (5), (6) and (10). None of those sections use the phrase “personal interest in a transaction,” so the AG’s interpretation of that phrase has no bearing on the recent complaints.

Furthermore, the AG’s opinion states in the first paragraph, “If the facts set forth in such material [referring to Norment’s and Stolle’s letter requesting the opinion] are incorrect or incomplete, you may not rely on this opinion in the event your conduct is later challenged.”

According to the facts cited in the opinion, Norment and Stolle did not divulge to the Attorney General the fact that they are both employed as “rainmakers” for their firm (i.e. attorneys who make presentations to prospective clients in attempts to get them to hire the law firm). This was a key issue raised in the formal ethical complaints filed against them on February 8, and which the AG opinion does not address, and therefore, to which it does not apply.

Norment’s webpage on the K&C website states, “Although now his professional focus is representing Kaufman & Canoles to prospective corporate and governmental clients, he's still active in the courtroom.” Stolle’s webpage similarly states: “For Kaufman & Canoles, Ken works closely with colleague Tommy Norment—the Senate Majority Leader—in presenting the firm to prospective corporate and governmental clients.”

Norment’s and Stolle’s efforts to thwart meaningful eminent domain reform legislation in the Senate certainly positively impacts the presentations they make to governmental clients, regardless of whether K&C does the condemnation work for those clients. As the two Senators should know, conflict of interest covers the clients the firm represents, not the types of cases litigated for those clients.

K&C’s governmental clients have a strong vested interest in seeing meaningful eminent domain reform stopped. K&C’s ability to get that done through the Senators can directly affect its relationships with those clients. Both Norment’s and Stolle’s 2006 Statement of Economic Interests disclosures show that government entities have paid them or their law firm more than $250,000 in the previous 12 months (see www.publicintegrity.org). “$250,001 and over” is the highest category in the disclosure, so there is no indication how much more than $250,000 the firm made.

Norment’s 2006 disclosure also cites a stock investment valued at more than $50,000 by him or a member of his immediate family in Dominion Resources, the holding company for Virginia Electric Power (one of the largest private condemnors in Virginia). Norment’s personal interest in Dominion Resources was another issue that the AG opinion did not address.

Stolle misrepresents his law firm’s representation of condemnors

In an interview with reporter Loretta Boniti from NBC affiliate WVIR in Charlottesville, Stolle stated that, “…neither Tommy nor I represent any condemnors…and to the best of my knowledge, the firm only represents landowners.” He told the same thing to the Virginian Pilot.

The facts show there are at least 13 high profile condemnation cases currently in Virginia courts where Kaufman & Canoles is representing the condemnor, the Chesapeake Airport Authority.

Given the substantial publicity that these cases were given in the media and the fact that the cases occurred in Stolle’s back yard (see Virginian-Pilot “Dispute Over Noisy Planes Nears End in Chesapeake,” January 20, 2007), and the fact that his firm is representing the condemnor, it is hard to understand how he can say he thinks his firm only represents landowners.

Stolle’s statement is also directly contradicted by K&C’s website (see “Practice Areas,” then “Municipal”) which states, “Defending local governments from civil rights and constitutional claims comprises a considerable part of our Municipal Law Practice Group focus. The claims have involved representation of municipalities or municipal officers in the areas of …unlawful taking of private property [ie. eminent domain condemnation]…”

The 13 cases mentioned above were filed by one attorney. There are likely many more.

Ethics panel conflicts of interest

Two of the five members of the Senate Ethics Advisory Panel that will hear the complaint have given donations to Stolle or to Virginians for Responsible Government, a political action committee specifically set up to support Stolle and Norment, among others (source: VPAP.org).

Given the allegations in the ethics complaints filed against the two Senators, it is important that the panel that hears these complaints be completely free of any conflicts of interest, and that any panel members with potential conflicts recuse themselves.

Additional information

The General Assembly Conflicts of Interests Act complaint alleges that Senators Stolle and Norment have used their positions and influence (Stolle is chairman of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and Norment is Senate Majority Leader) to get themselves appointed to the Eminent Domain subcommittee, where meaningful eminent domain reform legislation is buried year after year.

The complaint evidences that both Senators have thwarted attempts to bring about what experts consider “meaningful” eminent domain reform through their committee votes, their influence over other Senators as members of Senate leadership, and their writing and rewriting of legislation to water down any reform.

Virginia is only one of 13 states that have refused to pass meaningful legislation in response to the much maligned U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision in 2005.

K&C clients could easily construe the firm’s website as promising that the Senators will use their influence in the General Assembly to advance the interests of their clients. The website says that Stolle "works closely with colleague Tommy Norment – the Senate Majority Leader – in presenting the firm to prospective corporate and government clients. He has, over his years in the Senate, developed a vast knowledge of state government and a network of business, government, and law enforcement leaders who respect him and his work.” Norment’s webpage has a similar statement.

The last sentence on Stolle’s webpage states: “Says Ken, simply: ‘We have the ability to make things happen.’”