This is very important for everyone to know. The Herald's kamikaze front-page editors think this is SHOCKING.
Yes, yes, Diane Patrick has a big, important job for a ginormous law firm. Ginormous law firms like Ropes and Gray, Hale and Dorr Wilmer-Cutler-Groucho-Harpo-Zeppo, and so forth have many and varied clients, with a variety of interests before the state — as do all of us. Sometimes they'll work on the side of the angels … sometimes not. That's the law biz.
But let's look at the facts: The governor opposed a law that would have trebled damages for an employer that loses a wage dispute with an employee. He let the law go through, without signing it, apparently because he felt it would be overridden in any event. Even the law's opponents in the legislature seem to agree with that. Diane Patrick does labor law, and her name was on a memo sent to clients alerting them to the law's passage. That may well lead to more work for Ropes and Gray.
The implication is that a little pillow-talk lobbying between Diane and Deval led to the law's passage. Is that possible? Sure. Is it likely, given the governor's public opposition and the law's veto-proof support in the lege? Not really.
Look, this is going to happen again. We've already been through a controversy that didn't really get any traction, when we learned that Ropes and Gray handles some work for casino interests. But does this actually mean anything? Has Patrick “stepped in it again”? Only if you demand that his wife shouldn't have her job at all. I don't think that's a fair expectation.
This is not to say that extra scrutiny is unfair or unnecessary — it is! We should indeed keep an eye on Mrs. Patrick's doings, because she is in such a special situation. Aside from a needlessly provocative lede, I thought Jay Fitzgerald's article itself did a decent job of putting the Governor's and Mrs. Patrick's actions in context. Her actions were not unusual compared to other lawyers; and the law was passed by the legislature, without the Governor having much input or power over it. In Massachusetts, with the immense power of the legislative leadership, that happens.
Attention and scrutiny are good and necessary. But we should be careful about drawing unwarranted conclusions. Of course, the Herald knows that reserving judgment doesn't sell papers.
—
I anticipate that I will hear a few complaints as to how I'm treating this case differently from the case of DiMasi and the ticket sellers, goin' soft on Deval, hard on Sal. Well, different things are different. It's up to anyone with that complaint to show precisely how they are similar … or that I've got it backwards.
Even I, as critical of Mr. Patrick as I am, don’t see a connection between, Ropes & Gray and that silly-assed, well-intentioned, travesty of a law that creates yet more costs to being a Massachusetts employers.
<
p>Mr. Patrick should however, have vetoed the Bill, if — as was well known — he disagreed with it. Expect the inevitable, and usually, you’ll get it.
But she is a walking conflict of interest, and this is likely to come up repeatedly.
…is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
We have had a proposed administrative assistant, at $70K to help scheduling for a big firm lawyer. Scotched for fishiness-based reasons.
<
p>Next, we had a governor who, inexplicably, decided to go into the tank for big casinos, which happen to be a big client of said big law firm. Speculation ensues. Looks fishy.
<
p>Then, we had a governor who quietly looks the other way while the legislature makes the employment litigation business more lucrative, and Ms. Patrick signs (!) her firms’
marketing materialscorrespondence alerting clients to the change. Looks fishy, again.<
p>All this and the Ameriquest phone call.
<
p>This cycle will repeat down the road. How are his actions as governor benefiting Ropes & Gray? When viewed through this lens- as he already has been and will continue to be– he cannot look good no matter what he does.