- Legal News Updates
- Law Center
- Legal Business
- Court News Center
- Law Firm News
- Legal Interviews
- Headline News
- Political and Legal
- Practice Focuses
- Legal Spotlight
- Events & Seminars
- Legal Marketing
- Court Watch
- Immigration Law
- Media Center
- Justice Stories
- Court: Man can't be retried for murder after mistrial ruling
- Michigan Democrats back Nessel for state attorney general
- Question of sales tax on online purchases goes to high court
- Supreme Court again refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal
- Court hears case alleging unconstitutional 6th District gerrymander
- Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court
- Courts weighing numerous challenges to political boundaries
- Arkansas wants court to dissolve stay for death row prisoner
- TransCanada doesn't have to pay landowner attorneys
- Martin Shkreli cries in court, is sentenced to 7 years for securities fraud
The unanimous order by the state Supreme Court's five justices also could prompt a legal challenge from the first-term Democrat.
The one-page decision by the justices — three Republicans and two Democrats — dealt with a petition by state ethics enforcement lawyers who accused Kane of admitting that she had authorized the release of information that allegedly should have been kept secret. That allegation is also central to the criminal case against her.
In the meantime, it creates the unprecedented situation of leaving the state's top law enforcement official in charge of a 750-employee office and a $93 million budget but without the ability to act as a lawyer.
The state constitution requires the attorney general to be a licensed lawyer. But the court said in the order that its action should not be construed as removing her from office, raising the thorny question of how her office will decide which duties she can or cannot do.
Kane and her lawyers did not say Monday whether she would appeal or challenge the order, which was issued through an emergency process usually reserved for lawyers who are brazenly stealing from clients or behaving erratically in court.
In statements issued through her office, Kane, 49, said she was disappointed in the court's action and would not resign. She maintained her innocence and vowed to continue to fight to clear her name.
Then, Kane called attention to a pornographic email scandal uncovered by her office that involved numerous current and former officials there and claimed the job last year of a state Supreme Court justice.
Legal News Media
Legal News Organization press is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet
community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.