Fire Phill Kline points out this exchange in a Chat with Attorney General Phill Kline:
kugrad: Exactly how many cases did you try in court, meaning you were the lead attorney in the courtroom giving oral arguments, prior to becoming attorney general? If you must estimate, use small incremental steps such as 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, etc. Thank you, kugrad
Attorney General Phill Kline: My practice primarily consisted of construction mediation and arbitration. Early in my career my caseload was more substantial in number and less substantial in size of the case. I would average about 20 cases at a time. In my specialty of practice, however, I would be primarily responsible for 1 or 2 cases the cases were so mammoth in size. For example, my representation of the State of California consumed more than one year. My representation of Emerson Electric in a terrible accident in Hutchinson involving a salt plant consumed an enormous amount of time. Conversely, I represented the prison doctor at Lansing from inmate lawsuits and I would work 10-15 cases at a time. My experience in the law has been much more broad than Pauls who has had one type of case in one district court and has never entered private practice.
"Paul" in that passage is Paul Morrison, who has been a prosecutor in the Kansas City area for about 20 years.
Morrison has added two great ads to his page of videos. One takes Kline to task for his panty-raiding suits. The other contrasts Klines claims about clearing a DNA backlog against the size of the backlog (16,000 samples).
Enjoy.
- Log in to post comments
Since most people don't know where Johnson County is, I gave a more descriptive reference point.
Running the district attorney's office in Johnson County has made Morrison responsible for consumer protection as well as other sorts of criminal trials. Having an experienced lawyer as attorney general will be a lot better than having someone who has allowed his law license to lapse and hasn't got any real time in the courtroom.
That sort of experience matters.
Morrison has been with that office since the 1980s. He's been there for years. I'd support him over Kline any day.
Hi Josh; long time, no see. I'm what used to be "me."
Anyway: I've worked for Paul Morrison in Johnson County, and I prosecute in a Kansas county attorney's office (though not as big as JoCo). So I think I bring a relevant point of view here.
One does not need to be a trial attorney to be AG; if Morrison thinks he'll be regularly trying cases as AG, he's fooling himself. On the other hand, if he actually does, it is an incredible misuse of his time. An AG makes policy and administers; he doesn't try cases (unless he's grandstanding). That's what staff attorneys are for. Only in the exceptional case (such as an appearance before the USSC) would an AG generally make an appearance. And frankly, Kline's experience in complex civil litigation is much more what the most of the work of the AG is about, not criminal prosecution. The vast majority of criminal prosecution is handled at the county level by county or district attorneys; i.e., folks like me.
And before you even go there, yes, any competent attorney appearing before the SC would get tutoring and specialized preparation; you're a fool if you don't, and Kline is not a fool. Morrison would have done the same had he been facing orals before the SC.
(BTW - I've had two defendants petition for cert to the USSC; the first time I got a packet from the SC, I about fainted. Once I thought about it, and realized that the chance they would accept cert was practically nil - and they didn't - it was back to usual. But for a moment there; I had visions of going to DC, and the thought scared the #%$@ out of me. Oh well, maybe someday . . . )
I like Paul, I always thought he'd make a good AG. But much of his criticism of Kline is unfair. You may disagree with much of what Kline has done as AG, and much of that criticism is valid. You may have policy differences. But Kline has certainly been competent in the job. Morrison would be as well.
Bottom line: there are valid reasons to vote for either one. But needing an "experienced criminal trial prosecutor" is not a particularly important one. Personally, I've got issues with Morrison's opportunistic jump across the aisle.