Sen. Norment and Attorney General's office release opinion on W&M job....

Sen. Thomas K. "Tommy" Norment and the Attorney General's office have both released the opinion that Norment sought before agreeing to go to work at the College of William and Mary.

Norment joined the school in the summer of 2008 in a hybrid position where he would teacher law students and undergraduates and also provide legal advice to William and Mary President Taylor Reveley.

But before he took the $160,000-a-year spot, Norment went to then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to ask if he would be violating the state's conflict of interest rules.

McDonnell's gubernatorial campaign initially refused to release the opinion - citing attorney client privilege - but now Norment has opted to break that privilege and release the full opinion. Here is a portion of Norment's statement.   

“Although the opinion concludes that my employment at the College does not present a conflict of interest, news accounts referencing the opinion and citing my reluctance to release it have resulted in a situation markedly similar to one it advised me to avoid. As the ‘client’ in this matter, it is my right to break attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, I am releasing today my letter to then-Chief Deputy Attorney General William C. Mims seeking an opinion and the advisory opinion I subsequently received from then-Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell."

The following link includes Norment's letter to Mims and McDonnell's letter back to Norment, a James City Republican and longtime advocate for the university. The details add at least some more information to the brewing territorial dispute between William and Mary and the Attorney General's office.

William and Mary is the only state supported university in Virginia that has staff lawyers who do not report directly to the AG's office. Even W&M President Reveley acknowledges that the Attorney General would probably prefer that the three internal lawyers - two full-time including Norment and one part-time - be deputized by the state's top lawyer.

Norment said in his initial letter to Mims that "at no time will I assume a relationship of "attorney-client" that would result in the exercising of any attorney client privilege or any work privilege."

But Norment's statement appears to be at odds with the way that the top officials at W&M view the relationship. Consider this from W&M spokesman Brian Whitson earlier this week.

"William & Mary has also had inside lawyers of its own for many years. The university regards all advice it has gotten from these lawyers as privileged and will continue to do so. We believe our view of this is well rooted in the law."

So here's the opinion. Download NormentAGopinion

Further, the opinion specifically tells Norment to avoid any and all votes on William and Mary, but just last year Norment sponsored budget amendments for nearly $20 million-worth of state spending on the William and Mary campus.

Click here to look at the budget amendments for W&M that Norment put in this year. Just click on Senate and then click on Norment's name.   

This elaborate legal dance continues to grow more and more complex - and that's not even to mention Norment's lingering ties to Norfolk-based Kaufman and Canoles, a legal behemoth where he remains tied in a limited "of counsel" capacity.

Read on legal minds - what the heck is going on here?

Comments

[peter]

Manuel i think this is typical but important.
======================================
peter
find attorney

[Find Attorney]

hiiiiiiiiii
dear friend's i read your comment's and post's they are nice and effective but i want to know more about something if you tell me some more imfo. or data about this it's very nice to me and thank's a lot dear.............

[S. Armistead Lee]

Laura and Neil-
Unless I am wrong, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine (a defense attorney by trade) DID NOT call on Hamilton to resign. McDonnell et al acted in personal haste and the knife wombs to the back are still on Hamilton. Their behavior says more about their own ambitions than legal analysis and fairness.

In America, one is innocent until proven guitly - and not by newspapers, blogs or ugly partisans. I challenge each of you to show me a budget amendment where Delegate Hamilton sought 1 penny for ODU. Further, I challenge you in the Acts of Assembly, committee minutes and Appropriations deliberations to show me where Phil Hamilton sat on a subcommittee or conference committee where funding was decided for ODU. You WILL NOT find it. It doesn't exist. Research the facts if you have intellect enough (which I doubt) to do so.

If you have nerve "Laura" state who you are so you can be sued for libel. Hamilton has not, and is not getting ready to be, indicted. Senator John Chichester and Delegate Vince Callahan decided how much money to direct to ODU through Senator Harry Blevin's budget amendment. Let me guess, no nerve to give your true identity? If you do, look up the word "libel."

Hamilton will win and he will continue to represent the 93rd district well.

[Susan Edwards]

Neil b-
You really cannot believe the blather you espouse. You need therapy and medication. You are dillusional if you think missing a RSVP forum is ok for challengers but not incumbents. Seek help ASAP.

[Jimmy]

No, they have both missed several forums. Two that day to be exact. You never even came close to addressing the valid points that Laura was making.

[Neil B ♪]

"How the heck can you like someone, when you have no idea what they believe or refuse to articulate in any substantial policy debate. ..." Well, Abbott and West have been to most forums, and each missed one as best I can tell. You continue to indulge straw man distortions of what I say (which means, you likely distort other things too.) Robin and Gary explained positions there and on websites. Maybe the Daily Press should print up some positions as supplied. As for "liking", yes I know Robin for many years already but still think she is a good candidate anyway. Hamilton seemed capable to me, until he showed poor judgment about the conflict of interest.

So you Hamiltonians keep avoiding the subject of his ODU indulgence, which was bad enough for major members of *his own party* to call for his resignation. You keep pretending that little odds and ends like missing this or that forum, or some odd way of doing things at a Fall Fest etc., or bizarre claims about whether Robin shook hands with actual constituents or not (how would you know? They drove in from miles away just to see her I guess, I'd be flattered myself ...) is what matters more than the substance? You keep complaining why don't we discuss real issues, but you like to come on like style critics for a Hollywood show.

Don't count whose chickens drowned until after election day. I expect Democrats take at least one of these local races.

[laura]

It's amazing how you people rattle on about abbott.
Hamilton is being indicted for pay for play.
You guys are almost hilarious cause you are going to lose big time this election.
Calm down about Robin. She will represent you in Richmond with distinction.
The thing that you have the time to get on this forum and go after Robin shows that is all ya got. Sad state fo affairs, folks.
Or, just get a life.

[Matt Archer]

Neil,
Look around you are alone on a sinking ship. I think I just saw Captain Abbott swimming away with her First Mate West. Once again I'll tell you it is honorable to stand by your friend and for that applaud you. I think at this point you have done all you can and now is the time to follow your leader to safety, swim Neil swim.

[Laura Murphy]

Neil, you sound so skeptical, I think we can help fill you in on how bad the democratic candidates are this year.

Your point is that Oder "double-booked", this is election season. It's not double-booking, it's called showing up to campaign. Time doesn't automatically multiply because you have more than one event. He showed up to debate after being the KEYNOTE SPEAKER, that's why it is laughable that west did not even attempt to debate as he stayed in the audience AT THE SAME EVENT.

The fact that you say that incumbents need to be at the events more than the candidates makes you lose any semblance of believability. How the heck can you like someone, when you have no idea what they believe or refuse to articulate in any substantial policy debate. All the time in the world won't make Abbott or Costello, I mean West, better candidates.

[Neil B ♪]

I admit I didn't see the Williamsburg forum, I was making general points. You still didn't quote Abbott statements and argue untruth, so everyone must either take your word for it (why?) or pore over the videos or transcripts.

I find it hard to believe the DPV quit giving Robin more money, especially from "they are sick of her ridiculous tactics." ! How did you find that out? Finding evidence to the contrary should be easy, and I will put it here to prove you wrong. Parties rarely give up on a candidate unless that person is really awful, and I don't believe you without proof. If their donations did finish, it is likely a matter of law or budget. As for "qualified", does that mean no one should ever get elected to a first term?