ASSOCIATED PRESS

COLUMBUS - 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 personal concerns about expanding the lottery.

Attorney General Betty Montgomery said that's not a conflict of interest.

"Is there a divergence of personal view vs. public duty?" she said. "Yes."

From city attorneys to state attorneys general, lawyers who represent public institutions must sometimes march 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," said Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter.

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 Mr. Foley, a former state solicitor under Ms. Montgomery.

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.

"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," said Ms. Montgomery, 52, a former Wood County prosecutor.

"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."