Town Attorney Issues

[tomterific]

This weeks edition of the Hartford Advocate has a disturbing story that involves our Town Attorneys & their vetting process. Title of the story is 'Payback Time'. As of this posting, it's not on www.hartfordadvocate.com, but the paper version is available almost everywhere.

[SyZyGy]

[e-mail]

Payback Time

Wethersfield´s assistant town attorney didn´t tell the town council he was being investigated for misconduct by the panel that oversees lawyers

by Meir Rinde - December 11, 2004


The Wethersfield Town Hall: site of all the action.


John J. O'Brien is a political player in Wethersfield, where he lives with his wife Susan. A specialist in construction litigation, the 41-year-old attorney has served on the Wethersfield Town Council and on a police station building committee. In addition, for the past three years, O'Brien's law firm, Moller, Peck and O'Brien, has been Wethersfield's assistant town attorney. The town has a separate firm, Rome, McGuigan, Sabanosh, as town attorney, and some council members say the additional legal help is an unnecessary expense.

"When I was mayor for the preceding two years, it was my experience that we didn't really seem to need an assistant town attorney," said council member Kitch Czernicki, who is now in the town council's Republican minority. "I feel the work could be done in-house by the town attorney firms."

At a council hearing in December 2003, O'Brien suggested that the town attorney did in fact handle most of the town's legal work. He said, "It was unfortunate that much of the legal services of the last two years did not trickle down to his firm from the town attorney," according to meeting minutes.

The Democrat-led town council interviewed several lawyers at that hearing, since both attorney jobs were up for biannual renewal. O'Brien is a Republican, but the current Democratic mayor, Russell Morin, used to be a Republican when he and O'Brien were on the council at the same time, in the late 1990s. In addition, Susan O'Brien had given the Wethersfield Democratic Town Committee its single largest donation, $960, during a recent election campaign.

O'Brien was rehired, and even received an 80 percent raise, to $38,000 a year. Czernicki called the process that led to O'Brien's rehiring a "charade."

O'Brien may not last out his second term in the position, however. The Statewide Grievance Committee, which handles complaints against Connecticut lawyers, concluded in May that O'Brien engaged in "serious ethical misconduct," according to a copy of the decision posted on a Judicial Branch website. O'Brien had promised $75,000 to an engineer who did work for his wife's hazardous waste cleanup company, Site Remediation Services in East Windsor. But he hadn't told the engineer that the company was having financial problems and owed the money to a bank and an insurance company. In essence, O'Brien had promised the engineer someone else's money. The committee referred O'Brien to Superior Court for discipline.

The matter could also tarnish O'Brien's image in Wethersfield. During the interviews last December, one council member asked all the lawyers applying for the town attorney and assistant town attorney positions if they'd been subject to grievance proceedings recently. O'Brien said no. Yet that was just two months after the Statewide Grievance Committee had received the engineer's complaint.

The Wethersfield Town Council has a history of using its power in questionable ways. In 2001 it hired Democratic Mayor Wayne Sassano's wife as town clerk, though she wasn't certified for the job and a qualified assistant town clerk was interested in the position. Republicans cried foul and won the next election, knocking out the Democrats for the first time in eight years. That lasted until 2003, when the Dems made a major fundraising push and persuaded the Democrat-dominated electorate to give them back the council. It was in the summer before that election that Susan O'Brien gave the Wethersfield Democratic Town Committee a $960 donation. A month after the Democrats won back the council the interviews were held, and a month after that O'Brien was rehired to a job that was arguably a sinecure, and saw his pay nearly double to boot.

John O'Brien and Russell Morin didn't return calls seeking comment. We did reach Deputy Mayor John S. Karangekis, the town's former police chief, but he refused to comment on O'Brien's political connections. And he denied that hiring an assistant town attorney is a waste of money.

"They've done that before with other [towns'] councils ... where another attorney will periodically take on other work," he stammered. "I know it's been done before."

[SyZyGy]

STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Peter J. Mazza, Complainant vs. John J. O’Brien, Respondent

Grievance Complaint #03-0243

DECISION:

"....We conclude that the Respondent’s conduct relative to the payment of the Complainant’s fee following the settlement violated Rules 1.15(b) and 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In March of 2001, the Respondent attended a pretrial at which it was agreed that $100,000 would be released to the Respondent’s firm from the escrow. In April of 2001, the Respondent induced the Complainant to sign a Settlement Agreement providing for a payment plan for the long overdue fee owed to the Complainant with the promise that any funds recovered from the interpleader action would first be used to pay the Complainant’s outstanding debt. The Respondent did not inform the Complainant, however, that he and his firm had pledged all of the interpleader settlement funds to another creditor of the firm. In May of 2001, those funds were released to the firm’s other creditor and not to the Complainant. We conclude that the Respondent misrepresented to the Complainant that funds would be paid to the Complainant from the interpleader settlement when the Complainant knew that the funds had been pledged elsewhere, in violation of Rule 8.4(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover, the Respondent failed to safeguard the funds owed to the Complainant from the funds released from the escrow by using those funds for other firm debts when the Respondent knew that the Complainant had an interest in them, in violation of Rule 1.15(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the latter end, we categorically reject as semantic hairsplitting the Respondent’s argument that he did not violate the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the Rules of Professional Conduct because neither he nor his firm came into physical possession of the released escrow funds. The Respondent controlled the use of those funds and as such violated ethical rules.
It is the order of this reviewing committee that the Respondent be presented to the Superior Court for whatever discipline the court deems appropriate...."

Full text:
www.jud.state.ct.us/faq/grievance/030243.htm

[SyZyGy]

Ok, let's so some math. (No, I am not an accountant.)

1. JJObJr's firm gets a reported $38,000.00 retainer,

2. which is reported as a 80% increase;

3. that would be (by my estimation) about a $16,889 raise.

4. JJObJr's wife donates $960.00

5. $16,889 - 960 = $15,929 net return on her "investment", or

6. about a 1659% (per cent) return on her/their investment , if my math is correct.

Is this type of political math taught by the Wethersfield Public Schools, or do students have to learn it from their parents here?

(Any accountants want to weigh in? )

Modification made to correct some intermediate figures; results posted are unchanged:

[oldetowne]

I may get tarred and feathered for this one, but giving the job to people who are "connected" doesn't bother me as long as the town gets (1) good quality competent representation at (2) a reasonable price compared to what competing firms would charge. The old style patronage is sort of distasteful (for lack of a better word) and archaic, and maybe the lawyers should be picked the same way accountants or engineers are.

One thing that does bug me is the possibility that the question about grievances wasn't answered truthfully during the interviews. I mean people pay a lawyer to lie FOR them, but you don't pay a lawyer to lie TO you.

PS - Using the word "stammering" was a cheap shot against the former Chief who has served and continues to serve the town well.

[SyZyGy]

Copyright 2004, Hartford Courant
www.ctnow.com/hc-wetresign1224.artdec24,0,880615.story

Assistant Town Attorney Steps Down

Political Controversy, Misunderstandings Cited In Letter As Reasons For Resignation

By MaryEllen Fillo
Courant Staff Writer

December 24 2004

WETHERSFIELD -- Assistant Town Attorney John J. O'Brien Jr. has submitted his resignation amid controversy surrounding his reappointment and professional ethics

In a letter to Town Manager Bonnie Therrien dated Wednesday, O'Brien said he was resigning Jan. 1 because of "recent political controversy" and its effect on his firm's ability to "effectively represent" the town. O'Brien is paid $38,000 a year in the post.

"In our working relationship it is this firm's responsibility to effectively represent the best interest of our client, the town of Wethersfield," O'Brien's letter states. "However misbegotten the political controversy, or whatever misunderstandings may have taken place during the process of our appointment, our continued representation of the town from this point forward could potentially be affected by, impaired by and/or called into question in furtherance of political machination," he adds. "This would not be in the best interests of the town of Wethersfield and would only serve to thwart and distract from real issues facing the town."

Recently, questions have been raised about whether O'Brien was being truthful when interviewed a year ago for his reappointment. At the time, Republican Councilwoman Donna Hemmann asked O'Brien, a former Republican town council member, whether he or his firm, Peck and O'Brien LLC, had any pending grievances against them. O'Brien, who was first appointed as assistant town attorney by the Republican-controlled council in 2001, answered "no," according to meeting minutes. Several months later, word leaked out that there had been a pending grievance against O'Brien filed by the Mazza Consulting Group, an engineering firm, with the Statewide Grievance Committee. The committee handles complaints against Connecticut lawyers.

Mazza had been contracted by O'Brien to do work for his wife's company, Site Remediation Services in East Windsor, in a claim against the city of Norwalk. O'Brien, according to the complaint, never paid the consulting group after Norwalk settled the claim. Mazza complained that O'Brien never told him that Site Remediation Services was in financial trouble and that the money from the settlement, including the $75,000 that should have been paid to Mazza, was earmarked to pay outstanding debts to Bank of Western Massachusetts and United Pacific Insurance Company.

The grievance committee concluded in July that O'Brien engaged in "serious ethical misconduct" and referred O'Brien to Superior Court in Hartford for discipline - developments O'Brien did not mention in his letter to Therrien.

The grievance committee complaint is scheduled for a hearing on Jan. 5. The judge could suspend, disbar, order a lesser punishment or exonerate the attorney. O'Brien said he had no comment other than what was stated in his resignation letter.

A local taxpayer's group and some minority members of the now Democrat-controlled council had asked for O'Brien's resignation earlier this week. The Wethersfield Taxpayers Group is also pushing for a charter change that would change the way the job is filled.

"He did the right thing by resigning," said Rocco Orsini, president of the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association, which asked for O'Brien's resignation earlier this week. "In our opinion, the town must demand the highest ethical standards. By him resigning, it will keep the reputation of Wethersfield at its highest standards."

"It will allow him to focus on his needs and not pull the town into it," added Republican council member Kitch Czernicki.

Others, however, including Democrat Mayor Russ Morin, said Thursday he wished O'Brien had put off any decision until after the court ruling.

"John is a guy of integrity and served the town well for many years," said Morin, who is a former Republican. "But I guess he believes he is doing what is best for the town. I respect his decision."

Morin was critical of both the taxpayers group and Czernicki, a former mayor who oversaw the council that originally appointed O'Brien, for disparaging comments made over the past few weeks about the local attorney and the appointment process.

Morin said the appointed town attorney, John W. Bradley, of Rome McGuigan Sabanosh P.C. of Hartford, will continue to handle the town's legal issues until the council determines whether it will replace O'Brien with another assistant attorney.

"I think we want the town manager to give us an idea of how this has worked out financially for the town," said Morin.

emoticons & emphases are mine....Sy

[JudgeSmaels]

Why does the town need an assistant town attorney anyway?

Do we have that much to do that the town attorney can't handle?

How about we hire a full time attorney just like we have a town engineer, building inspector and so on.

Maybe we need the Fed's to come in and "check out the books".

[oldetowne]

It's too bad that this is getting so ugly, but why should this be any different than everything else in this town that involves the Council and the WTXA.

[SyZyGy]

I don't see this as a Council problem per se; I don't see this as a WTPA problem either. I see this as a problem with the soon-to-be former assistant town attorney, who lost sight of the forest for the trees. Pride goes before the fall.