Nearly a decade ago, when our editorial eyebrows were raised by contributions to, and free plane rides for, our state's attorney general from a big law firm she hired to handle environmental litigation, Patricia Madrid's response was predictable: Those contributions had nothing to do with her choice of firms. As for the grateful taxpayers whose money was going down the billable-hours pipeline and into salaries for her staff of 80 lawyers on the public payroll, well, we just don't have the expertise ...

Hmm. Shouldn't she have been out recruiting such expertise? Yes, private firms presumably pay enough to attract better talent — but surely there are lots of law grads seeking to serve the public. Why not find the best of them? Because private firms trolling for state contracts are such a handy-dandy source of campaign support?

It seemed smelly to us — but, we figured, if she wouldn't lead a reform movement, maybe the next attorney general would ...

Lotsa luck: Gary King, without benefit of bids, has continued using at least one of Madrid's chosen firms — a Texas bunch who gave King's campaign $50,000 as the 2006 election approached.

Same song, second verse: The money had nothing to do with his decision to stay with that firm, which stands to make bundles on its contingent-fee arrangement with the state. If those lawyers win the case they talked New Mexico and several other states into joining, they get a chunk of the judgment they're seeking against a pharmaceutical firm.

And the chorus: The AG has no one on board who can handle what he calls a complex case.

This time, it's not just the editorial "us" wondering aloud about cozy deals: The Wall Street Journal last week let King have it in on its editorial page.

We don't often share that paper's opinions, and King, a Democrat, was quick to blame politics for stories and commentary about his office's questionable handling of the private firm's contract with the state, or lack thereof.

For the Wall Street paper, anxious to find Democratic wrongdoing, the King case was icing for a cake being baked from pay-to-play allegations against Gov. Bill Richardson. Until or unless both politicians' actions are absolved by courts of law and public opinion, our sunny state looks distinctively shady to the rest of the nation.

Should the campaign-contributing firm win a whomping judgment for its client states, for what that firm says is improper marketing of an antipsychotic drug, our attorney general may feel free to crow about his astute choice of lawyers. We have no doubt that they know their stuff. Of course, we often say the same of Gary King: He's bright, he's capable and he's been an excellent public servant. So why this lapse?

He told the Journal that he and fellow attorneys general are discussing whether some of their practices might be perceived as pay-to-play. Seems King isn't the only recipient of that law firm's largesse.

That's good; second thoughts about such things are better than no thoughts at all ...