The example is below. The attorney general for Ohio made some comments on TV and he is being sued by the people he was talking about for defamation.
My question is, does the state he works for cover him and provide attorneys for him and, if he loses, cover the penalty or, because he is on TV and presumably not acting on behalf of the state, is he sued as a private individual?
I do not think a state AG going on TV and saying whatever is something the state would cover. That is not part of his official duties.
(I realize this subject is politically fraught but I do mean this to be a FQ question.)
The article indicates that the doctor filed a “tort claim notice,” which is required in order to sue for actions that occur within the scope of the employee’s employment. So, it seems like the physician’s theory is that the State of Indiana (acting through its employees) injured her. Which is something that I would expect the state to defend.
I would assume the state (or its insurer) would pay any judgment under the Tort Claims Act (especially since state law seems to authorize various officials to settle claims against employees, which would seem problematic if the employee then had to pay it).
If the conduct is deemed to be outside the scope of employment, the employee would likely be personally liable. I assume the state’s duty to defend the employee wouldn’t extend past a finding that the conduct was outside the scope of employment.
I don’t know about Indiana, but I believe that in similar suits in other jurisdictions, the courts have found that communicating to the public via the press is an inherent part of an elected official’s job even if it’s not an actual constitutional duty.
the attorney general determines that said suit has arisen out of an act which such official or employee in good faith believed to be within the scope of the official’s or employee’s duties as prescribed by statute or duly adopted regulation, the attorney general shall defend such person throughout such action.
it seems that Rokita will decide if his employees defend him.
There are two basic sides in such matter. If the AG says something that relates to his duties then they are better covered in terms of protection from lawsuits as well as getting state-backed aid in fighting such lawsuits. If the action is outside their official duties then they are on the hook themselves.
Certain parts of the AG’s comments might fall under the first category. E.g., claiming the doctor failed to file a report. Pretty much the rest of it is pure political, non-official nastiness.
But it will take the courts to decide what’s what.
Is there any case to be made that the AG is abusing their power?
I mean, can the AG point to being diligent in assessing if doctors are meeting their obligations or, can a case be made that the AG is abusing their power by picking and choosing who has to come under scrutiny?
That would be a question of Indiana state law. I dunno.
However, I can point to a precedent in Canada, where a premier of Quebec directed that the provincial authorities pull the liquor licence of an individual who ran a restaurant, for a political motive. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the premier was personally liable for civil damages, having mused his authority.
Would that sort of result happen in Indians? Dunno.
The question in both cases is whether police or investigators find evidence and bring it to the prosecutions / AG office, or whether the prosecutions / AG office tells the police to go out and get evidence on a target.
That might be a distinction between the Canadian case you cite and the other two cases, but it doesn’t seem to be a distinction between the Ohio AG and NY AG cases.
Both are cases where the basic story came to light via media reporting and similar publicity, and the AG then went out and dug up more evidence.
Probably. Indiana has a law against lawyers trying to influence court cases by making public announcements on the guilt of the accused.
A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
