COLUMBIA - About 20 lawmakers raked in more than $2.4 million in attorney fees by representing clients in front of state boards and commissions last year.

Those are the same entities the General Assembly controls, to a certain degree, through appointments and the budget process.

Legislators also appear in court in front of some of the same judges who vigorously lobby them for bench appointments.

According to annual financial disclosure forms filed with the State Ethics Commission, seven senators and their law partners collected more than $1.3 million in fees in 2004 from clients with cases before state boards and agencies.

The vast majority of those cases involved the Workers' Compensation Commission, but they also included the Department of Insurance and the Department of Revenue.

During the same period, 13 House members and their partners charged clients more than $1.1 million for similar services.

While lawmaker-lawyers are free to represent clients before state boards and courts, John Crangle, state director of the Washington-based government-watchdog group Common Cause, says the practice sets the stage for influence peddling.

"There's no doubt that a member of the legislature has some special status and prestige that helps him," Crangle said.

Clearning the system

Time was, being a lawyer in the General Assembly meant even more automatic power, prestige and juicy retainers from companies looking for favorable legislation.

In 1976, 30 of the Senate's 46 members were lawyers.

Today there are 12, and about half of them are still practicing law.

The number of lawyers serving in the House has been cut in half during the same period - to 22 from 44.

Some say the modern rigors of practicing law prevent many lawyers from getting involved in politics.

"If anything, it's a lot more difficult to be a lawyer in the General Assembly," said Rep. Murrell Smith, R-Sumter. "Clients want you to be in the office when they need you. They don't want to hear during the session that you're gone Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday."

Those lawyers who choose to serve in the legislature aren't scrounging for clients, at least not those with business before state government.

Sen. John Land, D-
Clarendon, collected more than $830,000 in fees last year from workers' compensation cases.

Land, who has served in the General Assembly since 1975, says he's proud of what he reports on his annual financial disclosure forms.

"In a way, it's good advertising for me," Land said. "If you look at my forms, you'll see I do pretty well with workers' compensation."

Lawmakers dismiss the notion that their positions help them attract clients or give them a leg up in cases.

"The commissioners are always polite to me, but they're polite to the people on the other side, too," Land said. "If you have a good case, you'll probably win. If you don't, you'll probably lose."

Rep. Jim Harrison, R-
Richland, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he doesn't think his highprofile helps get clients in the door.

"Except for maybe 10 percent of my clients, they've never heard of me before," said Harrison, who earned nearly $70,000 last year representing bars and restaurants seeking liquor licenses from the Department of Revenue.

Most lawmakers agree there is a potential for abuse but insist ethics rules they created are a firewall between themselves and the boards and agencies they appear before.

Ethics rules enacted in 1991 were designed to shed light on potential conflicts of interest. Those were put in place in the wake of the Operation Lost Trust scandal, a federal sting that uprooted corrupt lawmakers and lobbyists.

According to ethics rules, lawmakers must file annual financial-disclosure forms detailing when they or their law firms represent clients before state boards and agencies.

Members must recuse themselves from certain budget votes and commission appointments if they have represented clients before the agencies.

Lawmakers do not have to report fees they collect from clients appearing before state courts.

"The biggest influence you could have is voting on an agency's budget. So that potential abuse is eliminated," Harrison said.

Conflicts of interest?

Not everyone is enamored of the current ethics requirements.

Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-
Darlington, said the rules go too far.

Malloy, who earned more than $100,000 representing clients before the state Workers' Compensation Commission last year, said all elected officials encounter conflicts of interest at one point or another. How to deal with them is a question for voters, he said.

"There's conflict amok in here," he said. "Theres a lot of supporters of public education who have children in public schools. What would happen if everyone had to recuse themselves from votes dealing with schools?"

J. Alan Bass, former chairman of the Workers' Compensation Commission, says that though the likelihood of a lawmaker-attorney swaying a state board is slim, he wonders about their influence with judges who are elected by the General Assembly.

Current ethics rules don't require lawyers in the General Assembly to disclose any details of those cases or recuse themselves from voting for - and lobbying on behalf of - judges.

The General Assembly elects judges to Circuit Courts, Family Courts, the state Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Races for open seats depend largely on personal relationships between lawmakers and judicial candidates.

Complaints that might stem from that relationship are typically handled by the judicial branch of government, not the General Assembly.

In 2004, the Senate Ethics Committee weighed in after a complaint was lodged against several legislators.

Though the identity of the lawmakers is kept secret, the complaint alleged they had "compromised the impartiality" of an unidentified judge by attempting to influence him in a child-custody case.

The Ethics Committee drew up guidelines to warn members of the General Assembly about communicating with judges about the outcome of cases.

Common Cause's Crangle doesn't think a judge could be swayed by a lawmaker. But even the appearance of a conflict doesn't instill confidence in the system.

"I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms, and I've never seen a judge bend over [backward] for a senator," Crangle said.

"The perception is bigger than reality, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter."