D.C.'s Attorney General
As Linda Singer departs, the position's independence must be preserved.

Monday, December 24, 2007

LINDA SINGER'S selection by D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) as the District's attorney general was surprising. So, too, is her departure, under circumstances that are not completely clear. Concern about the functioning and independence of this office is understandable. But proposals to dramatically reshape the office are premature and likely not in the best interests of the D.C. government or the people it serves.

Ms. Singer put a positive face on her departure after less than a year, but her associates told Post reporters that she was frustrated by what she saw as interference from General Counsel Peter J. Nickles. The mayor's reliance on Mr. Nickles was obvious. A former partner at Covington & Burling, Mr. Nickles is an accomplished litigator who forcefully advocates for his positions. Ms. Singer, who hails from the nonprofit world, was not as persuasive and got tired of being second-guessed. Some have questioned Mr. Nickles's involvement, but no evidence has emerged to suggest any improper or political interference.

Key to the controversy is how independent the attorney general's office should be and how the mayor should balance its advice against that of his general counsel. Both are appointed by the mayor and serve at his pleasure, but there is statutory authority for the office of attorney general that establishes its right to conduct the law business of the District. There is no question that the attorney general must have unfettered authority, free from politics, to enforce the laws of the District. However, on policy matters it is proper for the mayor to get involved and to get advice from whomever he trusts.

Ms. Singer's departure has caused some to suggest reform. A bill sponsored by D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) would create minimum qualifications for the job and provide for a set term of six years, with protections against removal. The council already has the power to confirm the attorney general, so setting minimum qualifications is unnecessary. Establishing a six-year term is worrisome. It could result in a mayor seeking to appoint someone who will always do the bidding of the executive. Then, too, a newly elected mayor might be saddled with an attorney general at odds with his policies. The attorney general would be unaccountable to anyone.

Mr. Nickles is acting attorney general until Mr. Fenty finds a permanent replacement. By the quality of that appointment, Mr. Fenty should prove his commitment to having a strong and independent attorney general.