The state's top lawyer says she will zealously fight a lawsuit against Ohio's participation in a multistate lottery, even though she has strong concerns about expanding the lottery.

Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery says that's not a conflict of interest. "Is there a divergence of personal view vs. public duty?'' she asked. "Yes.''

From city attorneys to state attorneys general, lawyers who represent public institutions must sometimes go into court defending laws they disagree with.

"We all take an oath of office to support the laws of our state, but we are all going to have a few differences on what we think the current state of the law should be,'' Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said.

Carter is defending legislation that outlaws soliciting children for sex, even though he thinks the law is flawed and needs strengthening.

Prosecutors have appealed the dismissal of solicitation charges against a man arrested in a police sting. The man's attorney successfully argued that Indiana's law makes it illegal to ask children for sex but not if the "child'' turns out to be an undercover police officer.

"We're arguing that the law is constitutional, but also at the same time we're supporting a legislative change that would enhance our chances of having it found constitutional,'' Carter said.

Generally, it's up to the attorney general to defend laws, even if the official disagrees with them, said Edward Foley, an Ohio State University law professor. What's trickier is when an attorney general has questions about the law's constitutionality, he said.

"The normal rule of attorneys general is, when a decent argument is to be made, you make it on behalf of the client,'' said Foley, a former state solicitor general under Montgomery. "Even if you think the assertion of constitutional authority is dubious, you go into court to assert it anyway.''

In rare cases, however, even that rule is broken. In December 1999, for example, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno declined to defend a little-noticed 1968 federal law that overruled the Supreme Court's landmark Miranda decision that requires police to inform suspects of their rights.

Reno's office contended that the Miranda ruling "is of constitutional dimension'' and "cannot be superseded merely by legislation.''

Gambling opponents sued last week over Ohio's decision to join a multistate lottery, such as Powerball or the Big Game. They argue that the state constitution permits only a lottery run exclusively by Ohio with no involvement by other states.
In 1996, Montgomery actively campaigned against a proposed constitutional amendment to allow riverboat gambling. She worked with David P. Zanotti, whose Ohio Roundtable is one of the groups suing over the multistate lottery.

"As the attorney general I raise my right hand and say, 'I swear to uphold the laws and Constitution of the state of Ohio,' and so that doesn't mean I can do everything I want to do,'' Montgomery said. "It means I do everything the law requires me to do, and if I have an opinion to the contrary, the law is one place and my personal opinion is another.''

Caption: Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery said public duty takes precedence over personal views.