The Solicitor's Office seems to be fixated on the issue of whether AM was paid. I don't see that as an issue and in fact it probably would have been better if he had been paid in some capacity because that would have meant any casework he did was tracked and logged. (IMO, he did no work.)
The issues with his volunteer gig with the Solicitor's Office are
- Did AM benefit from an ongoing relationship with the Solicitor's Office?
- Were any of the cases he worked affected by his criminal behavior?
On the first issue, I'd say that he benefited by carrying a badge and by the public perception that he was still affiliated with the Solicitor's Office. That public perception would be strengthened by the Murdaughs having held that office for 80-odd years. The reporting and court documents released indicate that AM was aware that the badge and affiliation conferred additional authority and used that authority to intimidate people who crossed his family.
On the second issue, the Solicitor's Office has already publicly admitted that they did not track AM's casework because he "volunteered." If that's the case, could they decline to revisit past cases if new allegations of criminal misconduct by AM in the adjudication of past cases were to surface? They have no records to demonstrate the cases he worked on or didn't work on.
If the Solicitor's Office now wants to say that AM didn't actually do any volunteer work, then why was he afforded benefits as though he were? Did AM ever do any volunteer work? If AM did do volunteer work at some point and then stopped, how would they know since they weren't tracking his hours or his casework (and see above)?
IMO, I don't see how AM's sweetheart volunteer gig doesn't drive directly toward misconduct, misuse of public office and corruption on the part of the Solicitor's Office. MOO.