Where do an Assistant Attorney General&#39;s (AAG&#39;s) loyalties lie?
<p>The tax payer foots their bill, so I would think if there was a dispute between an AAG and a citizen and a body the AAG represented, some consideration would be given by the AAG to the argument of the citizen.   Government bodies shouldn't be able to "lawyer up" if they're doing something wrong.  Of course "wrong" is sometimes a matter of interpretation.  The AAG also has his attorney's oath to consider.  Do they swear loyalty to the law, to the government official they represent, to the people?  To the governor? To the Attorney General?</p>

<p>In almost all states of the US, the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction as well as being the government's chief lawyer. Assistant attorney generals occupy the next rung down and have generally been delegated all or a subset of the powers of the Attorney General.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I would think if there was a dispute between an AAG and a citizen and a body the AAG represented, some consideration would be given by the AAG to the argument of the citizen.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So would I. In fact lets extend this, if person A makes a complaint to person B about the organisation person B represents then I would expect that person B would give due consideration to that complaint and, if they believe the complaint is justified, take the appropriate action. In any event, they should respond to person A's complaint in a polite and considered manner.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Government bodies shouldn't be able to "lawyer up" if they're doing something wrong.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, the AAG is probably a lawyer to start with so them applying their legal training to the complaint is hardly "lawering up" but I get the point. </p>

<p>If the government is doing something wrong then they should, like everybody else, stop doing it.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Of course "wrong" is sometimes a matter of interpretation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here I disagree with you. "Wrong" is <strong>always</strong> a matter of interpretation. Sometimes the interpretation is easy: genocide is wrong, 2x3=5 is wrong, child abuse is wrong. Sometimes it is not easy: is the granting of this particular mining lease wrong, is homosexual marriage wrong, is representative democracy wrong?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do they swear loyalty to the law, to the government official they represent, to the people? To the governor? To the Attorney General?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Most AAG will be lawyers and will be obliged to follow that ethical code. They are employee's of the Department of Justice for their state and are obliged to obey their employer's directions like all other employees. They are officers of the court and are obliged to follow the law. They have the state as their client and are obliged to defend their client's interests to the best of their ability.</p>

<p>Do these obligations sometimes create ethical and legal dilemmas? Of course.</p>

united-states