Main Content
Delaware AG Investigates Own Client, Celia Cohen, Grapevine Political Writer, Sept. 15, 2007.
In 2007, the Delaware Attorney General Joseph "Beau" Biden, III sued a state agency represented by his office., This article therefore provides a description an actual example of the functionality of attorneys general described in the organizational chart where circumstances led an attorney general to actually place a client agency under a de facto consent decree. Delaware AG Investigates Own Client, Celia Cohen, Grapevine Political Writer, Sept. 15, 2007
Two readings:
- Original link: http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/9-07executivecounsel.asp
- Archival Link: https://perma.cc/JS7R-Z68E
Delaware Department of Justice’s Public Statement Regarding the Conclusion of the Department’s Investigation of the Delaware Psychiatric Center, Delaware Department of Justice, May 12, 2008
- Original Link: https://news.delaware.gov/2008/05/12/delaware-department-of-justices-public-statement-regarding-the-conclusion-of-the-departments-investigation-of-the-delaware-psychiatric-center/
- Archival Link: https://perma.cc/NMK3-D4SC
Posted: Sept. 15, 2007
A-G BIDEN QUIT REPRESENTING PSYCHIATRIC CENTER IN CLASSIC CONFLICT
By Celia Cohen Grapevine Political Writer
State officials had to scramble to find a lawyer for the vilified Delaware Psychiatric Center this summer, when Attorney General Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III delivered a surprise notice that the Justice Department no longer would provide representation because it was investigating the facility.
The psychiatric center, then and now, was in dire need of legal advice as the subject of swelling scrutiny by government investigators, legislative overseers and the news media looking into accounts of patient mistreatment, a hostile work atmosphere and mismanagement at the state-operated hospital near New Castle.
The unexpected attorney-juggling arose from a classic bind in a state that invests potentially-conflicting powers -- to prosecute, investigate and also to represent and defend the government -- in the attorney general, its chief legal officer who additionally must keep the will of the voters in mind as an elected official.
This conflict, in fact, occurred even though Biden and Gov. Ruth Ann Minner are fellow Democrats.
The Justice Department's withdrawal as counsel freed it to pursue an investigation through its Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which checks into charges of the misuse of federal money and the mistreatment of people whose care is provided by the federal dollars. But it left the psychiatric center in the lurch.
Minner administration officials handled this legal crisis by retaining Joseph C. Schoell, the governor's former counsel now in private practice at WolfBlock, to represent the psychiatric center. Schoell took on the assignment in early August at an hourly rate of $300, discounted 20 percent for the state from his regular hourly rate of $375.
"We had an operational agency that was being bombarded with legal and management issues and was left with no immediate legal representation. It clearly took us by surprise. We responded as quickly as possible. Luckily we had a law firm with experience in state government," said Mark T. Brainard, the governor's chief of staff.
The situation reinvigorates a strenuous public policy debate that has simmered for decades, dating back to the last years of Republican Gov. Pierre S. "Pete" du Pont's administration in the mid-1980s and reviewed in depth in the early 1990s by a government reorganization commission that Minner chaired as lieutenant governor.
Both du Pont and the Minner Commission concluded that the state would be better off with the creation of an Office of Executive Counsel, which would report to the governor and be responsible for representing state agencies. The attorney general would retain prosecutorial and investigatory powers and continue to represent the state in litigation.
It never came about, primarily because of vigorous objections from Attorney General Charles M. Oberly III, a Democrat now in private practice, and Attorney General M. Jane Brady, a Republican now on the Superior Court, both three-term officeholders whose combined tenure stretched from 1983 to 2005.
Beau Biden was largely noncommittal. "I understand why these suggestions have been made over the years. Are there potentials for conflict? Yes. If and when those occasions arise, we will take appropriate action," he said.
The arguments on both sides exploit the dual nature of the attorney general as a lawyer and a public official. Lawyers owe essentially ironclad loyalty to their clients. Public officials have a broader portfolio for the state's welfare with a duty to give independent advice.
David S. Swayze, a lawyer who was du Pont's gubernatorial counsel and also served on the Minner Commission, is unwavering in his view favoring an Office of Executive Counsel so that a state agency does not have to rely on a deputy attorney general, answerable not to that agency but to the Justice Department, for legal representation.
"Who has the loyalty of the lawyer? If it is otherwise than the client, it is a breach. This is so foreign to the concept of the attorney-client relationship. It is out of bounds," Swayze said.
Oberly believes the public is served better by making no changes. "It would be incredibly dangerous to tinker with the system. You would destroy the Attorney General's Office as we know it, and we would have a partisan [executive counsel] office that would do the governor's bidding. There will occasionally be a conflict that will arise, but they're overreacting to a problem that really doesn't exist," he said.
Oberly predicted that an Office of Executive Counsel would create the state equivalent of Alberto R. Gonzales as the counsel to the president and beholden to him.
The present design certainly has its tensions -- and not just those as dramatic as Biden's decision to investigate the psychiatric center and abandon its representation. For a time Jane Brady was not only the attorney general but a potential Republican candidate against Minner for governor, not exactly someone the administration would want to consult on confidential legal matters.
The annual budget bill also has been known to exacerbate the conflicts, because sometimes the salary and the supervision of an attorney general come from different sources. "Under the current system, you've had the awkward situation with deputies located in a department and in the department's budget while reporting to the attorney general," said Anthony G. Flynn, a lawyer who was the counsel to du Pont and to Gov.
Michael N. Castle, now a Republican congressman.
Some agencies have tried to get around the problem by squirreling away attorneys in their administrative offices in something of a shadow Office of the Executive Counsel. As a lawyer aware of the potential for divided loyalties, Democratic Insurance Commissioner Matthew P. Denn brought in Michael L. Vild, a lawyer, to be the deputy commissioner, even though the Insurance Department has a deputy attorney general assigned to it.
Because of the psychiatric center's woes, there could be a new push in the 2008 legislative session for a bill to set up an Office of Executive Counsel.
"We cannot operate with our agencies wondering day to day whether they have legal representation," said Brainard, the governor's chief of staff. "This is an issue we are clearly going to have to look at before January."
RETURN TO COVER PAGE
###
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
CONTACT JASON MILLER PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
PHONE (302) 577-8949
CELL (302) 893-8939
JANICE FITZSIMONS
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Media Release
May 12, 2008
Delaware Department of Justice’s Public Statement Regarding the Conclusion of the
Department’s Investigation of the Delaware Psychiatric Center
Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. Biden, III, announced today that the Delaware Department of Justice (DDOJ) has concluded its ten-month investigation of allegations of patient abuse at the Delaware Psychiatric Center (“DPC”).
The DDOJ investigation concluded that there were systemic violations of Delaware’s
Mental Health Patients’ Bill of Rights, 16 Del. C. §§ 5161 & 5162. Such violations included, but were not limited to, DPC’s failure (1) to prevent physical and emotional abuse of patients by employees and other patients; (2) to prevent mistreatment of patients through inappropriate use of medications, isolation, and physical and chemical restraints; (3) to prevent neglect of patients through lack of attention to their physical needs including safety concerns; (4) to prevent the use of unjustifiable force against patients; (5) to provide to each DPC patient care and treatment suited to the patient’s needs, skillfully, safely and humanely administered with full respect for the patient's dignity and personal integrity in a setting and under conditions that restrict the patient's personal liberty only to the extent required by the patient's treatment needs, applicable law and judicial orders; and (6) to provide each patient with an outcome-oriented, individualized, written treatment plan, treatment based on such plan, periodic review or revision of the plan consistent with treatment progress, and a description of treatment and other support services needed upon discharge.
As a result of this investigation, the DDOJ prosecuted and convicted two members of the DPC staff: Woods Etherington and Anthony Liggians.
In addition to holding staff criminally liable and in order to remedy the systemic violations of the Mental Health Patients’ Bill of Rights, the DDOJ and the Delaware Department of Health and Human Services (“DHSS”) have entered into a legally binding “Memorandum of Agreement Between the Delaware Psychiatric Center and the Delaware Department of Justice to Ensure Enforcement of and Compliance with the Mental Health Patients’ Bill of Rights at the Delaware Psychiatric Center” (“Memorandum of Agreement”).
The Memorandum of Agreement contains a comprehensive plan of action listing the necessary corrective measures and accomplishment dates that the DPC must meet in order to fully comply with the Delaware Mental Health Patients’ Bill of Rights.
These measures include but are not limited to: (1) submission of a protocol and set of procedures governing the use of its currently deployed system of video-monitoring throughout DPC patient areas as a management and prevention tool for the purpose of ensuring patient safety and quality of care; (2) identification of the categories and definitions of incidents to be reported and investigated; immediate reporting by staff to supervisory personnel, DPC’s director, and State officials of serious incidents; and the prompt reporting by staff of all other unusual incidents, using standardized reporting across all settings; (3) mechanisms to ensure that, when serious credible allegations of abuse, neglect, and/or serious injury occur, staff take immediate and appropriate action to protect the individuals involved, including removing alleged perpetrators from direct contact with individuals pending the investigation’s outcome; (4) adequate training for all staff on recognizing and reporting incidents; (5) notification of all staff when commencing employment and adequate training thereafter of their obligation to report incidents to DPC and State officials; (6) posting in each patient care unit a brief and easily understood statement of how to report incidents; (7) procedures for referring incidents, as appropriate, to law enforcement; (8) mechanisms to ensure that any staff person, individual, family member, or visitor who, in good faith, reports an allegation of abuse or neglects is not subject to retaliatory action by DPC and/or the State, including but not limited to reprimands, discipline, harassment, threats, or censure, except for appropriate counseling, reprimands, or discipline because of an employee’s failure to report an incident in an appropriate or timely manner; and (9) mandatory investigation of the criminal history and other relevant background factors of all staff, whether full-time or part-time, temporary or permanent, or a person who volunteers on a regular basis and performance of drug testing of any person engaged in direct patient care.
The parties have agreed that an independent “Compliance Chair,” the Honorable Vincent
A. Bifferato, Sr., former Resident Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, will determine DPC’s compliance with the Memorandum of Agreement. If Judge Bifferato determines that the DPC has failed to comply with the Memorandum of Agreement, the DDOJ will move to enforce the Mental Health Patients’ Bill of Rights in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware.
DPC administrators fully cooperated with the DDOJ investigation. Moreover, DPC has taken positive steps, such as reducing staff vacancies and hiring a new director, to improve conditions at the facility. Indeed, absolutely no evidence was discovered that DHSS and/or DPC destroyed or shredded any documents relevant to the investigation or the protection of patient rights.
All parties agree that violations of the Mental Health Patients’ Bill of Rights must immediately and permanently cease. DPC administration and staff must create and enforce an environment that does not tolerate abuse, mistreatment or neglect of any patient and which provides and fosters a safe and humane hospital setting where the highest quality of therapeutic treatment is available to all patients.
DPC’s decision to enter into this Memorandum of Agreement with the DOJ demonstrates that DPC has committed to ensuring its patients the care and treatment they are entitled to under the law. It also allows us to begin to cure the problems at DPC now rather than engage in a lengthy litigation process.
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.