You are here
Defending Officials: Misuse of Office and Who the Client Is
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Misuse of government resources, nepotism, transparency, and the
obligations of government attorneys are all issues in litigation over a
village's secret use of a contaminated well for 20% of the village's
water supply, according to an
article
in Sunday's Chicago Tribune.
Here a few questions that arise from this matter:
Is it a misuse of government resources for personal benefit to suddenly go from using lawyers charging $180 an hour to lawyers charging $500 an hour, when the change in quality of lawyer is strictly intended to defend the mayor, the former mayor (the current mayor's father), and the village's top water official against civil lawsuits relating to the water matter? Even the village attorney's billings doubled, from $74,000 to $156,000, due to his need to coordinate the work of a variety of other lawyers, totaling over $1 million in fees in 2009 (the use of contaminated water, for the last 22 years, didn't come to light until April).
Is it right for a mayor to participate in any way in the approval of funds to defend his father?
Does the fact that both mayors "filed official paperwork telling residents and regulators that all of the village's tap water was treated Lake Michigan water" make this more than just a civil litigation (a criminal investigation is also being done by the EPA and the U.S. Attorney's office)? By state law, municipal funds cannot be used for officials' criminal defense. But isn't lying about a town's water supply and hiding it from the town's residents effectively criminal activity, no matter what sort of suit has been filed so far?
And what about the high-priced lawyers? Who are they representing, father and son, or the village? One of the lawyers insists that the father has dementia and cannot testify, but others say this isn't true. Should the lawyer paid by the village do anything to protect any official if it is against the interests of village residents?
In addition, the legal bills have all the description of work crossed out, and the lawyers say it is due to lawyer-client privilege. But a client can waive the privilege, and there's little doubt that the village residents want to know what their money is being spent on. Should a mayor whose interest it is to keep hiding from residents whatever he can have any authority over whether the privilege can be waived? I don't think so.
In fact, village residents have hired a lawyer of their own to represent their interests, which clearly conflict with the mayor's. But this is not a legal matter. State law is clear that it is only criminal representation that the village doesn't have to pay for.
No, this is an ethics matter, and the mayor continues to show that his interests, and those of his father, come first. The people of Crestwood should insist that he participate in the matter in no way other than as a witness, that if he and his father want personal defense, they can pay for it themselves. Otherwise, the village itself is the client, and no one with an interest in the case can manage the village attorneys.
It is hard to know what the position of the current village attorney is, in terms of loyalty to father and son, politics, etc. If he is seen as independent, then he would be the best person to manage the litigation. If not, I think that the trustees should, to the extent they are not themselves implicated, choose who will manage the litigation.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Here a few questions that arise from this matter:
Is it a misuse of government resources for personal benefit to suddenly go from using lawyers charging $180 an hour to lawyers charging $500 an hour, when the change in quality of lawyer is strictly intended to defend the mayor, the former mayor (the current mayor's father), and the village's top water official against civil lawsuits relating to the water matter? Even the village attorney's billings doubled, from $74,000 to $156,000, due to his need to coordinate the work of a variety of other lawyers, totaling over $1 million in fees in 2009 (the use of contaminated water, for the last 22 years, didn't come to light until April).
Is it right for a mayor to participate in any way in the approval of funds to defend his father?
Does the fact that both mayors "filed official paperwork telling residents and regulators that all of the village's tap water was treated Lake Michigan water" make this more than just a civil litigation (a criminal investigation is also being done by the EPA and the U.S. Attorney's office)? By state law, municipal funds cannot be used for officials' criminal defense. But isn't lying about a town's water supply and hiding it from the town's residents effectively criminal activity, no matter what sort of suit has been filed so far?
And what about the high-priced lawyers? Who are they representing, father and son, or the village? One of the lawyers insists that the father has dementia and cannot testify, but others say this isn't true. Should the lawyer paid by the village do anything to protect any official if it is against the interests of village residents?
In addition, the legal bills have all the description of work crossed out, and the lawyers say it is due to lawyer-client privilege. But a client can waive the privilege, and there's little doubt that the village residents want to know what their money is being spent on. Should a mayor whose interest it is to keep hiding from residents whatever he can have any authority over whether the privilege can be waived? I don't think so.
In fact, village residents have hired a lawyer of their own to represent their interests, which clearly conflict with the mayor's. But this is not a legal matter. State law is clear that it is only criminal representation that the village doesn't have to pay for.
No, this is an ethics matter, and the mayor continues to show that his interests, and those of his father, come first. The people of Crestwood should insist that he participate in the matter in no way other than as a witness, that if he and his father want personal defense, they can pay for it themselves. Otherwise, the village itself is the client, and no one with an interest in the case can manage the village attorneys.
It is hard to know what the position of the current village attorney is, in terms of loyalty to father and son, politics, etc. If he is seen as independent, then he would be the best person to manage the litigation. If not, I think that the trustees should, to the extent they are not themselves implicated, choose who will manage the litigation.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
