Illuzzi Whitewash Streak over: Mark Johnson FTW

We have a winner! WDEV talk show host Mark Johnson has finally broken the Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash!

Brief recap: Longtime State Senator Vince Illuzzi is considering a run for Attorney General. He has a long and dismal record on legal ethics, having been repeatedly brought to task by the Bar and the Judiciary. His law license was suspended for over four years in the mid-90s, and was very nearly revoked. (See my previous diary for some of the details.)

Illuzzi was a guest on the Mark Johnson Show this morning, and Mark held his feet to the fire pretty thoroughly on his past ethical problems. If you missed it, Mark puts his shows in a podcast archive — usually within 24 hours or so.  

Highlights… after the jump.  

First, Illuzzi confirmed that he’s 75% sure that he’ll run, that he won’t make a final decision until after the Legislative session is over because he doesn’t want his Senate activities perceived as political blah blah blah*, and that he’s pondering whether he’d run as a Republican or Independent.  

*I hate that excuse. It’s flimsy as hell. You can tell when somebody’s planning to run for something; Illuzzi has pursued quite a few high-profile issues of late, that are clearly aimed at raising his profile as a fair-minded independent kind of guy. And our campaign finance laws let these guys get away with it; the initial reporting deadline isn’t until July 1st. In this day and age, that’s laughable. But I digress.

Also note that, although Illuzzi stuck to his 75% estimate, the conversation quickly adopts the future definite tense — “I will,” rather than “I would.” So that 75 is probably a teensy bit low.

After asking about the job Bill Sorrell has done and getting the requisite non-answer (“It’s not about his record, it’s about what I would bring to the position”), Mark launched directly into Illuzzi’s past ethical troubles.

Mark: Is it reasonable to run for AG with all the troubles you had in the 90s? A slew of ethical charges, and having your law license suspended?

Illuzzi: It’s a fair question. The issues placed me in a position — one was we had — The courts had been trying to close the Essex County Courthouse. We passed a law mandating that Essex County cases be tried there. This judge didn’t want to drive up there, so he moved the cases. I pursued the matter; the judiciary disagreed with me, and turned around and filed charges against me. I acknowledge that, from their perspective, I was wrong.

Stop right there. Illuzzi’s history is backwards in a completely self-serving way. As the Supreme Court record clearly states, the ethical case against Illuzzi was filed, and THEN he started pursuing the judge — David Suntag, whose wife Wendy Collins was handling the State Bar’s ethical case against Illuzzi. The Court record states that Illuzzi pursued Suntag because he was mad at Collins.

Mark: There were other problems, too. You directly contacted an insurance company instead of going through its counsel.

Illuzzi: That was an interesting time in the law. A number of attorneys including myself would contact insurance companies, which were not directly parties to the litigation. This was hotly contested, and the Supreme Court ruled against me. I made a mistake and moved on.

Mark: Don’t you think your opponent would raise these questions?

Illuzzi: They will and I’ll answer them. If that’s the focus of the campaign, I’ll lose. But you can’t wash away my 32 years of service in the Legislature. It’s a balance. If people are looking for a reason to vote against me, you’ve given it to them. If they look at my record and experience, they’ll vote for me.

Mark: But can you overcome those ethical questions?

Illuzzi: I have in other aspects of my life. I’ve been the Essex County Attorney since 1998, I’ve had a successful law practice. If folks think all of that is secondary, then I’ll lose. My constituents saw all of this up close —

Mark: But that’s different. You were running for Senate. Now you’re running for the state’s top legal job.

Illuzzi: Well, that’s all I can offer.

Mark: Why would you roll the dice and give up 32 years of seniority? You can’t run for both, can you?

Illuzzi: I could, but I wouldn’t. After 32 years, it’s reasonable to consider using my experience in a different way. My life is a bit overwhelming right now; I have three jobs, and a demanding schedule. As i get older, it’s harder to keep up. I’ve been thinking about cutting back. It makes sense to refocus on one thing.

Interesting bit of news there. So he’s likely giving up his Senate seat because he’s tired of chasing three part-time jobs all over creation. Can’t say I blame him, and it’s a decent explanation for why he’s willing to risk 32 years of seniority on what he himself acknowledges is a real gamble.

There you go. Mark didn’t tackle every aspect of Illuzzi’s ethical record, but I thought he did a very good job of directly confronting the guy. I hope this opens the gates for all Vermont media to directly tackle Vince Illuzzi’s record, and explore whether or not he is fit to occupy the position of the state’s top legal officer.  

3 thoughts on “Illuzzi Whitewash Streak over: Mark Johnson FTW

  1. What’s Mark Johnson think? That the people in the NEK are dumb? Illuzzi says he has been elected over and over again for Senator and State’s Attorney and his constituents have seen him up close and decided to support him despite the attacks on him by some of the Supreme Court people.  “That’s different,” says Mark.  “You were running for the Senate.  Now you’re running for the State’s top legal job.”  Why is it different?  And isn’t State’s Attorney a legal job?

  2. I think it’s sad that a site that prides itself on enlightened attitudes toward issues of crime and punishment thinks it’s so important to dwell on problems that Vince Illuzzi had with the Professional Conduct Board (not “the Bar” in Vermont) back in the 1990s.  The last problem he had, as far as I know, was the rather controversial prosecution/persecution of him initiated by individual members of the Supreme Court (who would later sit in judgment of him) for a complaint filed against Judge David Suntag for violating the statute that said that Essex County cases were to be heard in Essex County.  If you know Vince, you know that he is a great defender of his county, and he perceived it as an insult that Judge Suntag didn’t want to hold court there even though that’s where the litigants were from.  The Conduct Board felt Vince was being vindictive because Judge Suntag’s then-wife had a job with the Conduct Board.  

    Whatever the merits of Vince’s complaint or of the resulting suspension, it had to do with a complaint he filed in 1993, almost 20 years ago.  Is that really such an important issue?  Yes, there had been prior disciplinary proceedings, but one of them (for which he was suspended) had to do with speaking directly with an insurance adjuster when the insured was represented by a lawyer, something that many other lawyers said was standard practice.

    Vermont is one of the few states where you don’t lose your right to vote by being prosecuted criminally.  Although Republican candidates for Secretary of State two years ago advocated changing that, both Democrats, including the one who won, spoke in favor of keeping full civil rights available to all voters.  We ought to do the same for candidates.  Vince Illuzzi has been a senator since 1980.  There are plenty of issues to talk about.  The fact that he made some mistakes in his legal career should not be the focus of the campaign.  (And other people have made mistakes as well, including me.  “willhunter” is the screen name for “Will Hunter” and, to save anyone the time it would take to find out via Google, I was disbarred for conduct as a lawyer in the 1990s.  If you look at the list of Professional Conduct Board members who ruled in the Illuzzi case, you’ll see names of some people who have had their own problems, too.)

Comments are closed.