Three years ago, I joined five other former Idaho Attorneys General in describing that important position as “the state’s family lawyer” because the AG is legally obligated to “perform all legal services for the state.” The AG should scrupulously comply with all legal, ethical and professional standards. Disrespect of any of those standards is detrimental to the legal profession and erodes public confidence in the rule of law.
It has been shocking to observe the repeated disrespect for the law exhibited by Attorney General Labrador. The latest example is his effort to escape accountability for firing a competent and reputable Deputy Attorney General (DAG) in March of 2023. The DAG, Daphne Huang, was an attorney for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) at the time and ethically required to act in that client’s best interests. IDHW was also Labrador’s client.
Labrador was displeased with IDHW’s administration of a federal grant program and made it clear to Huang that she needed to side with him and against her client. Huang refused, just as any ethical lawyer would, and was fired. She filed a wrongful termination suit against Labrador later that year. The case is currently being litigated.
When I started law practice in the early 1970s, Idaho had just implemented new “discovery” rules. Before that, lawyers often went into trial not knowing what evidence might be produced by the other side. The new rules gave lawyers the ability to discover details about an opponent’s case before trial. An important tool is the deposition, where an attorney can take live, recorded testimony of an opponent and his or her witnesses.
Labrador‘s deposition was scheduled by Huang’s attorneys for February 14 of this year. He failed to appear for the deposition and did not try to get it put off beforehand, as a reputable lawyer would have done. That is a serious breach of professionalism and court rules. Labrador then made the shocking claim that he should not have to give his testimony. The judge handling the case saw it otherwise, as any competent lawyer would have predicted. The judge observed that Labrador appeared to be the one who made the decision to fire Huang and that he had to make himself available for a deposition. The judge also required the AG’s office to pay Huang’s attorney fees and expenses for his refusal to be deposed, so taxpayers will have to shoulder that cost.
Labrador’s impudent response to the judge’s ruling was that “high-ranking government officials” should be shielded “from precisely this type of litigation-driven harassment.” Shame on the judge for failing to recognize the elevated status of high potentates like Labrador. Apparently, the judge did not realize that Labrador has been ranked highly, particularly by companies he might be called upon to regulate, as shown by the luxury junket to Rome that he was treated to in April. This type of luxury junket is supported both by taxpayers and corporate interests.
Rather than come back to Earth and testify about his reasons for firing Huang, Labrador again sought to be excused from having to submit to the indignity of explaining why he fired a competent, honest DAG for refusing to commit a serious breach of legal ethics. His attorney once again argued to the judge that Labrador should be protected from being deposed because of his important status. The argument did not work any better the second time around. Labrador’s state-paid lawyer has requested the judge’s permission to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.
This kind of conduct is beneath the office of Attorney General. Instead of claiming elevated status or exemption from procedures designed to arrive at the truth of a matter, the AG’s behavior should be exemplary, both in word and deed. We would expect that of our private lawyer and the public should demand it from the state’s family lawyer.
