(The Center Square) – A complaint against Solicitor General Noah Purcell with the Washington State Executive Ethics Board has been rejected for investigation despite allegations that the decision by Executive Director Kate Reynolds was made amid a conflict of interest.
According to emails obtained by The Center Square, Reynolds has previously written that she reports to Purcell. Last month, Purcell wrote a response to the Washington State Bar Association on behalf of Attorney General Nick Brown related to an ethics complaint filed against him.
Recommended Stories
- Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner while considering case
- Boston facing mass deportations under ‘Operation Patriot 2.0’
- Trump celebrates West Point 'smartly' axing ceremony for Tom Hanks
The WSBA complaint concerned Brown’s involvement in an amicus brief filed in support of a lawsuit by Perkins Coie against President Donald Trump’s executive orders cancelling the law firm’s contracts; at the time, the AGO had 10 active contracts with Perkins Coie that it failed to disclose in the amicus brief. The AGO attorneys were also possibly communicating with Perkins Coie attorneys without knowledge of Williams & Connolly, the firm hired to defend Perkins Coie.
In his complaint with the Washington State Executive Ethics Board, Police Strategies CEO Bob Scales argued that Purcell violated state ethics rules by using public resources to defend Brown in the WSBA inquiry.
“This is use of state resources for a private benefit,” Scales’ complaint stated. “The WSBA grievance concerns Mr. Brown as an individual licensee; it is not an AGO matter involving the State’s legal interests.”
He added that Purcell is “a material fact witness to the Perkins Coie amicus drafting at issue in the grievance. Participating as drafter/advocate in his superior’s personal disciplinary matter is incompatible with impartial state service and creates a material personal-interest conflict.”
However, in an email Reynolds wrote to Scales that “based on the information in your complaint, there is not enough to allege violations under the Ethics In Public Service Act. It is our understanding that in limited situations, Attorney General’s Office resources may be expended to respond to bar complaints regarding actions taken in the course of official duties.”
In a follow-up email, she wrote to Scales that the “complaint which does not contain enough information to allege a violation of chapter 42.52 RCW or is outside the jurisdiction of the Board will not be accepted for filing. Based on these provisions, your complaint was not accepted for filing.”
The Executive Ethics Board’s staff is funded and supported through the AGO.
In an email to The Center Square, Scales wrote that Reynolds should have abstained from the complaint against her supervisor, claiming it violates a state code of ethics regarding conflicts of interest.
He also cited the Ethics in Public Service manual from 2016 that states “acting in a state matter or transaction involving a business or organization in which you own an interest, or an entity in which you serve as an officer, agent, employee, or member” constitutes a conflict of interest.
Scales also filed a separate WSBA complaint against Purcell.
A complaint has now been filed against Reynolds with the Executive Ethics Board and assigned to her supervisor, Chair Kelli Hooke.
The Center Square reached out to Reynolds for comment on whether or not a conflict of interest existed, and also any policies the Executive Ethics Board has in place for complaints against AGO employees. The Center Square did not receive a response by time of publication.
When The Center Square reached out to Purcell for comment, AGO Communications Director Mike Faulk wrote that “the solicitor general was unaware that an ethics complaint had been filed until he received your email. He received no notification, was not consulted by staff, and had no discussion with any staff of the board about the complaint before it was dismissed.”
Faulk added that “the ethics board is housed in the AGO for administrative matters, but its work is not subject to review or approval by the solicitor general or anyone else here.”
Regarding Purcell’s response to the WSBA on Brown’s behalf, Faulk cited RCW 43.10.040, which states the AGO is allowed to “represent the state and all officials … before all administrative tribunals or bodies of any nature, in all legal or quasi legal matters, hearings, or proceedings.”
“Attorney General Brown is obviously a ‘state official,'” Faulk wrote. “WSBA is obviously acting as an administrative tribunal or body in this matter. Dating back to previous administrations, the office often represented the attorney general in response to bar complaints.”
JUDGE ENDS FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SAYING CITY COMPLIED WITH CONSENT DECREE
In a statement to The Center Square, WSBA Chief Communications and Outreach Officer Sara Niegowski wrote that “the function of the discipline system is to determine whether alleged misconduct should have an effect on a legal professional’s license to practice law. That is its scope of authority (licenses).”
Scales has requested an advisory opinion on his complaint against Purcell from the State Ethics Board, which will take up the matter at its Nov. 14 meeting. It will be available to watch on Zoom or TVW.