The firm has an entire Web page devoted to its “gaming” practice (“gaming,” as I’ve pointed out before, is cleaned-up PR-speak for “gambling”). Among the so-called accomplishments it claims are helping Native American tribes deal with debt issues and – get this – “Defending a gaming company before the Federal Election Commission against charges of improper campaign donations.”
The firm assures Bailey that Diane Patrick is not involved in Ropes & Gray’s gambling operations, and, further, that Ropes & Gray claims no involvement in Gov. Patrick’s push for three casinos. No doubt that’s accurate, but it’s also irrelevant. If casino gambling comes to Massachusetts, lucrative business for Ropes & Gray awaits. And what’s good for Ropes & Gray is good for the Patricks.
How do you like the prospect of our governor’s creating the very “alleged” gambling addicts who’ll be suing companies represented by his wife’s law firm?
Needless to say, this is grotesque. It seems weird to suggest that Gov. Patrick should recuse himself from having any involvement in his own gambling proposal. But he’s the one who put himself in this position, not us.
With the gambling issue heating up, and with House Speaker Sal DiMasi’s opposition having come into question because of his golfing habits, Bailey picked the perfect moment to drop the bomb.
I’m kind of surprised at Dan here. For those not in the industry, Ropes & Gray is a Heeeeeeee-uge firm in Boston, and they’ve got their fingers in just about every conceivable industry in Massachusetts. As such, the potential for the appearance of impropriety is almost limitless.
<
p>Here is their practice area page.
<
p>Here is the page detailing all of the other industries that Ropes & Gray’s practice touches.
<
p>And here is Diane Patrick’s bio.
<
p>As you can see, she practices in the “Universities & Colleges” group. A far cry from the “gaming” department. “So what” you say? It’s all one firm? Well, there are over 850 lawyers in that “one firm,” and I doubt very much that anyone in a Universities and Colleges department would ever have anything to do with anyone in gaming practice, at least on a professional level.
<
p>Now, if you want to question why Diane Patrick would work for a firm that represents casinos, go ahead. But it’s a Big Law firm, and those guys make money by representing big business. You take the good with the bad. Since when did we require that Diane Patrick perform pro bono work for the poor?
<
p>Is it grotesque? No. It’s a little eye-brow raising, but that’s about it. Ropes stands to benefit in a general sense if some gaming organizations wanted to do business here, and those organizations were Ropes clients. But that relationship is still only potential, and the link to Diane Patrick attenuated. In my own opnion, anyway.
And, to add to that, the way they likely split the pie at R&G means that Ms. Patrick wouldn’t benefit from gaming/gambling litigation, except in the indirect sense that business pays the rent for her office, which isn’t all that much of an issue there.
<
p>That said, I agree with dkennedy (I’m not sure I have before) that this is another display of tin-ear politics by the Governor.
I agree with everything Edprispy posts above. And I really, really, really disagree with Ryan’s belief (and Dan’s agreement?) that the biggest reason that Patrick is supporting casinos is that his wife works for a law firm that might make money if casinos were built here.
<
p>That seems a little tail wagging the dog, first of all. And while maybe his casino support might not perfectly fit his profile of a new way kind of Governor, I’m not sure it turns him from that to a Curley-esque “which policy stance puts more money in my pocket” guy, as is suggested by Ryan’s comment.
<
p>And since I’m picking on our friend Ryan’s post, I’ll take issue with his blanket statement that his position is turning his “entire base against him.” I’m pro casino, pro Patrick and I BET I’m not the only one.
So long as you place your bet far away from here.
<
p>I don’t think the Governor’s policy is malicious or self-dealing, but merely politically inept.
<
p>I suspect the idea that it is otherwise stems from a misunderstanding of how great an impact the revenues might be, coupled with the progressive-liberal tendency to mistrust corporations and business generally.
Actually, I can’t imagine that Gov. Patrick is pushing casinos because his wife works at Ropes & Gray. It is, nevertheless, a textbook conflict of interest. This is the road you head down when you push a sleazy initiative like casino gambling.
At least until that last sentence when you became a hectoring hyperbolizing advocate again.
<
p>I think you do your own cause better on this issue when you play it straight up: you certainly have plenty of ammunition here without playing that game.
I will await your diatribe on the Governor’s textbook conflict of interest when he promotes Not-for-profits, another area in which Ropes practices law.
<
p>Or congratulating Bailey and Ryan for their shared outrage that Governor Patrick dare promote environmentalism, when we all know full well that his wife works for a firm that does work in that area of the law.
<
p>Sleazy initiatives both.
<
p>My guess is that you’re using a textbook with a very broad definition of conflict of interest. Perhaps we could get some feedback from one of the actual lawyers who visit the site? Their textbooks might be a little clearer.
Are the second-to-last refuge of a scoundrel. (Patriotism, of course, being the last.) If you would like to compare casino gambling to environmentalism, be my guest. As for the lawyers, this is what it is. If it’s also illegal, well, that would be interesting, wouldn’t it? But even if it isn’t illegal, it’s still a conflict of interest.
<
p>I was hoping you’d stop saying that without my having to point out that it’s really not a conflict of interest.
<
p>The governor has a wife who works at a firm that does business in an industry that the public might potentially have an interest in. That’s not a conflict of interest. It’s certainly not a “textbook” conflict of interest.
<
p>If Diane Patrick, Esq., was legal counsel to the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in some sort of negotiation with the Commonwealth, that might get you closer to a text-book conflict of interest. Heck, if Ropes and Gray ends up representing a tribe interested in a casino in Mass, then you might get to the point where public disclosures are made. Maybe. But so long as Diane Patrick stays out of the legal counsel aspect of it, I don’t think there would be a conflict in the technical sense of the term.
I would delete “Diane Patrick” and replace with “any lawyer at Ropes & Gray”
Your argument is that the Governor proposing increased activity in an area in which Ropes and Gray does business is textbook conflict of interest, because his wife works there. Unless I’m mistaken.
<
p>So I wonder: Is it a conflict of interest only when it involves something you consider sleazy? It’s not an analogy. I just sense your being arbitrary.
<
p>You apparently can’t even claim or show that Ropes represents a gaming company already positioned to benefit if the proposal goes forward.
<
p>It’s a thinly supported accusation, the second leading characteristic of a scoundrel journalist. The first being plagarism.
You gotta read the papers, noternie.
that argument makes no sense. Is it even an argument? Enlighten me, how is Patrick’s support of casinos different from his support of solar companies if they’re both represented by his wife’s firm? if she personally has equal involvement in both (none) then how does your argument stand?
My view is that yes, this is a textbook conflict of interest, no matter that it is minor.
<
p>You are right that an awful lot of things that the governor does could create a conflict of interest with Ropes & Gray. It is not an insignificant problem.
The firm’s quite active in the Life Sciences too, with a Practice Area of the same name. A similar conflict exists with respect to the Life Sciences Bill?
<
p>Probably — per Prisby — any Legislation is going to find Ropes and Gray at the table and often in conflict because they’re so friggin’ big and their practice so encompassing.
<
p>Probably with any new policy, given some time, one could find a conflict. Good thing he’s actually implemented so few policies!
on casinos. We don’t like ’em.
<
p>That being said, I think this line of argument possesses absolutely no merit whatsoever, for the reasons Ed says above. Unless Diane Patrick is specifically doing work for (or against) casino interests, there’s nothing here.