Kirsten Engel, a Democrat aiming for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District, might want to double-check her resume before spouting off about the rule of law. Back in 1993, she was called out in court for billing the federal government for what the judges saw as “imaginary” legal work. That’s right—the same Engel who is now preaching about justice once had a judicial panel slam her for serious misconduct as an environmental lawyer. But hey, maybe she’s hoping everyone forgot about that.
The records, which are as old as some voters in this race, have resurfaced just in time to challenge Engel’s credibility. During her time as a staff attorney for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund; now known as Earthjustice, Engel was chastised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The judges didn’t mince words, labeling her actions as a “serious transgression” and an “aberration.” Ouch. So much for being a champion of legal integrity.
Let’s not forget the timing here. Engel is currently running against Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani in a competitive swing district, and she’s been all about the rule of law on the campaign trail. She even took the opportunity to declare that nobody is “above the law” when former President Donald Trump was found guilty in his hush money trial. But it seems Engel’s past actions might just undercut her self-righteous stance. After all, it’s hard to preach about justice when you’ve got a history of overbilling the government for work that, according to the court, didn’t quite happen as you claimed.
Engel’s legal career includes a stint at the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund after spending three years at the Environmental Protection Agency’s office of general counsel. During her time with the Sierra Club, she was involved in lawsuits against the federal government, including a 1993 case over hazardous waste management regulations. It was in this case that Engel’s billing practices were put under the microscope and found severely lacking.
A panel of three judges, which included none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she ascended to the Supreme Court, expressed their dismay at Engel’s “intolerably excessive” billing. The court’s opinion stated that even a basic review of Engel’s time entries would show that she was billing on a scale that could only be described as “Brobdingnagian,” a fancy way of saying her claims were beyond enormous. The court also pointed out that other lawyers from the Environmental Defense Fund submitted reasonable time sheets, making Engel’s over-the-top billing stand out like a sore thumb.
The judges didn’t hold back in their condemnation. They labeled overbilling the government as a “serious transgression” that harms the public trust and the fiscal health of the country. They reduced Engel’s original fee request from $32,542.75 to just $14,069.25—a substantial cut that speaks volumes about the court’s view of her actions.
Of course, Engel’s campaign is in full damage control mode. Her campaign manager, Alia Kapasi, was quick to spin the story, claiming Engel was just a junior employee working for a demanding boss and had no say in the billing decisions. Kapasi argued that Engel completed her work as assigned and filed her time sheets accurately. She also dismissed the court’s opinion as the work of an “extreme, far-right judge” with a political agenda. Convenient, isn’t it?
But the court’s opinion tells a different story. Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, took the time to highlight Engel’s specific time entries. He questioned why any attorney, especially one with Engel’s supposed expertise, would need nearly two work weeks to draft two letters and research an issue related to attorneys’ fees. The court was so unimpressed with Engel’s billing practices that when the Environmental Defense Fund later asked to have all references to Engel removed from the opinion, the court flatly refused.
Engel’s past might just come back to haunt her as she campaigns against Ciscomani. After all, it’s one thing to talk about upholding the law; it’s another to have a court call you out for bending it. As voters weigh their options, they might want to ask themselves if they can trust someone who has been on the wrong side of the courtroom before. Engel’s past actions raise serious questions about her integrity—questions that won’t be easily answered with campaign slogans and spin.