Jon Ralston sorts through a bizarre federal case in Reno that has entangled Gov. Jim Gibbons and the first lady

By Jon Ralston (contact)

Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007 | 7:17 a.m.

For a governor who is under scrutiny by the FBI for taking payoffs and who blithely flouted federal and state laws setting up a secret legal defense fund, an ethics question probably is inconsequential.

But thanks to a bizarre federal case unfolding in Reno, it has become clear that Jim Gibbons appointed to a plum state job an attorney representing his wife, who desperately is trying to avoid testifying. This has the appearance of impropriety and at least flouts (but may not violate) state ethics laws that prohibit granting unwarranted privileges - i.e., an appointment - to anyone with whom you have a business relationship - i.e., attorney-client.

What makes this especially interesting is not just the ethics problem but the case itself, which would take more space than I have here to explain, and the fact that the first lady's attorney will not even acknowledge she is the first lady's attorney - despite clear evidence that she is.

The case, a mix of Shakespeare, Oliver Stone, and Gilbert and Sullivan, involves a once-politically connected homeopath, James Forsythe, who believes he is being prosecuted for trafficking in Human Growth Hormone because of a vendetta - the defense has talked in broad terms about conspiracies but has yet to present any proof. Forsythe clearly believes Dawn Gibbons was involved because the doctor's wife, Earlene, was once chairwoman of the GOP and hostile to a Dawn Gibbons congressional bid. Thus, the defense has issued a raft of subpoenas, including one for the first lady.

When questioned last week by the Associated Press, the attorney, Pat Lundvall, would not confirm she is the first lady's advocate and said in court she was appearing on behalf of an unidentified woman. She actually wrote it on a pad for the judge to read. And yet the governor's press secretary, when asked about the first lady's role in the case, directed inquiries to Lundvall, and court documents essentially prove Lundvall is representing Dawn Gibbons.

Six weeks after she filed a motion to quash the broad subpoenas sought by the defense, citing confidentiality laws and the likelihood that the release of names may suggest the patients were part of any alleged drug trafficking, Lundvall was appointed to the state Athletic Commission by Gov. Gibbons. Lundvall is clearly close to the family, having previously been given spots on the governor's transition team and on a public-private partnership board (ironic because this is another example of a public (athletic panel) and private (representing the governor's wife) partnership.

Lundvall did not return phone calls and the governor's office called the case a private matter and cited confidentiality issues. But make no mistake: Lundvall is the first lady's attorney.

In his response to Lundvall's motion to quash the subpoenas of the former patients, Forsythe lawyer Kevin Mirch focuses on one of the former patients Lundvall represents. Mirch writes that the "subpoenaed witness was in a position of authority in the State of Nevada who approved of Dr. Forsythe's medical practice and use of (HGH). ... For many years this witness held a position in State government and was affiliated with Council on State Government Committee on Aging." Mirch later refers to the person as a "state lawmaker."

How could anyone think he is referring to former Assemblywoman Gibbons, who still lists her experience with the aging committee on her first lady Web site?

On Sept. 13, while Lundvall was working on his wife's legal issue, the governor appointed her and gushed in a news release: "Pat Lundvall is highly respected among her peers, both personally and professionally."

So should the governor have disclosed that Lundvall was working for his family? Of course. But did the governor violate state ethics laws?

The law says an elected official cannot grant " unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages" to anyone with whom he has "a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of that person," including "with whom he has a substantial and continuing business relationship."

The governor's counsel, Josh Hicks, points out that if the privilege being granted is seen as warranted - i.e., Lundvall is qualified, as she no doubt is - the statute does not apply. Hicks also argues that the attorney-client relationship is not the kind of business relationship the statute intended to highlight.

Perhaps. But in the middle of a trial all about political incestuousness, for the governor to appoint to one of the state's most sought-after positions someone he already has put on two panels and who now represents his wife in a controversial case will raise some eyebrows. At least.