Chip Taylor

Working both sides of the street

There is a strain of public choice literature that suggests that raising legislative salaries decreases the proportion of state legisltors who are lawyers. The theory is that lawyers have more opportunities to convert legislative influence into outside income. Therefore they are willing to serve for low salaries. Raising legislative salaries increases competition for the seats from non-lawyers. There is also empricial evidence to support the theory.

If you think the view that lawyers convert influence to outside income is too cynical, then read this article in The State:

About 20 lawmakers raked in more than $2.4 million in attorney fees by representing clients in front of state boards and commissions last year.

Those are the same entities the General Assembly controls, to a certain degree, through appointments and the budget process.

Legislators also appear in court in front of some of the same judges who vigorously lobby them for bench appointments.

According to annual financial disclosure forms filed with the State Ethics Commission, seven senators and their law partners collected more than $1.3 million in fees in 2004 from clients with cases before state boards and agencies.

The vast majority of those cases involved the Workers’ Compensation Commission, but they also included the Department of Insurance and the Department of Revenue.

During the same period, 13 House members and their partners charged clients more than $1.1 million for similar services.

Naturally, the barristers think any concern is much ado about nothing.

Rep. Jim Harrison, R-Richland, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he doesn’t believe his high profile helps get clients in the door.

“Except for maybe 10 percent of my clients, they’ve never heard of me before,” said Harrison, who earned nearly $70,000 last year representing bars and restaurants seeking liquor licenses from the Department of Revenue.

Although I don't believe him, the question of whether his clients know he is a legislator is largely beside the point. The regulators at the Department of Revenue know he's an influential legislator and that's enough.

There is another article in the Greenville News.