Judicial Clerkship Could Be Stumbling Block in Kentucky AG Race

A federal clerkship often is a stepping stone for new attorneys, but it could be a stumbling block for a rising Republican star running for Kentucky attorney general.

Daniel Cameron should be stripped from the November ballot because he hasn’t met the eight-year practice requirement to run for the state’s top law enforcement position, according to a complaint filed in Kentucky State Court.

A Louisville voter claims that a 2011-13 stint in the chambers of U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove means Cameron, the first black attorney general nominee in Kentucky history, can’t meet the requirement.

The case hinges on whether the state should consider clerking within its definition of the “practice of law.”

Federal court clerkships commonly convey excellence, but the suit claims these posts aren’t sufficient lawyering to meet the attorney general candidate qualifications.

The suit points to the written “Ethics for Federal Judicial Law Clerks,” which includes the line: “During your clerkship, you many not practice law.”

Cameron’s campaign said this sort of attack has already been debunked. It points to a 1995 state court order that said then attorney general candidate Ben Chandler met the eight-year practice requirement because he was licensed for at least eight years.

Opponents tried to disqualify Chandler by arguing his four years as state auditor didn’t count toward the “practice of law.” Chandler won the race, and later went to the U.S. House.

“Cameron is more than qualified to serve legally,” Cameron’s campaign said in a statement.

Democrat attorney general candidate Greg Stumbo issued a statement saying the lawsuit didn’t come as a surprise.

“The constitutional eligibility of my opponent has been discussed in Democrat and Republican circles since long before the primary,” he said. “There is a real question of if he were to become Attorney General whether any actions taken by him would be null and void.”

The case is: Jackson v. Cameron, et al., Ky. Cir. Ct., No. 19-CI-5702, complaint filed 9/17/19.