Judge to decide soon if Ritz can sue board with own attorneys

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge could decide as early as Friday whether to dismiss a lawsuit that state Superintendent Glenda Ritz has filed against 10 members of the Board of Education she chairs.

Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg said he’d give time for Ritz’s attorneys to file additional arguments in the case before he ruled on Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s request that he throw out the suit.

Zoeller says that he’s the only attorney who can represent a state office holder, agency or government commission in court. Ritz used attorneys in her office to file the suit. One of those attorneys – Michael Moore – told the court Tuesday that’s an exception allowed by law.

But although Rosenberg didn’t make an immediate decision, the judge hinted Tuesday that Ritz’s attorneys have a high hurdle to clear in winning their argument.

Rosenberg said he didn’t “see a distinction between” the current case and a previous one involving a former governor and what was then the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission. In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that only the attorney general could represent the governor.

Deputy Attorney General David Arthur agreed on Tuesday, telling the court that Ritz “is not entitled to hire counsel to represent her.”

The focus of Tuesday’s hearing was on the role of the attorney general in representing state officials in court. The question is whether it’s an option or an exclusive responsibility.

There was no discussion in court about the underlying lawsuit, which accuses 10 members of the State Board of Education – who were all appointed by Republican governors – of violating the state’s Open Door Law by taking official action without meeting in public for a debate and vote.

The lawsuit followed a letter the board members signed last month that asked GOP legislative leaders to have the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency calculate A-F school grades, even before the Department of Education had finished working on the data.

Ritz’s spokesman, Daniel Altman, would not comment on the lawsuit Tuesday. But Ritz has previously said that the Department of Education is working diligently on the school grades and that the board should not have asked lawmakers to intervene without a public discussion and vote.

Zoeller has said he’s not taking sides in the underlying dispute. In a statement Tuesday, he said the only issue before the court now is “whether an attorney can represent the state of Indiana without the consent of the attorney general. “

“My office is not adverse to any of our clients but we are only defending the well-established case law that helps avoid the disputes in the Statehouse from coming before the judicial branch of government,” Zoeller said.


  • Sue, Sue, Sue -- Democratic game plan
    Nice job, Ritz! The only thing you can bring to the office is another lawsuit!!!

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.