City Council Lawyer Claims a Conflict
When the City lawyer files a case against the City Council, people really get upset. The question is “whether the City lawyer is acting as a lawyer for the city in all affairs?” Does this abridge his rights to represent owners against agencies of the city? Does information he received at the City Council meetings interfere with his activities? Does he know what happens at closed sessions? How divided are his activities?
It is always a problem to handle cases against the community that you work for. This is why so many eminent domain lawyers specializing in representation of owners fear representing governmental or utility acquisition agencies. Unbiased valuation is such a vital aspect of proper client representation that any bias leaves one in fear of hurting other clients in the condemnation setting.
The Times Tribune
Any lawyer who works for a municipal government represents the taxpayers. It doesn't make any difference which agency or branch of the government the lawyer serves; the public and its tax-funded treasury are the common denominators.
So it should be pretty clear to Scranton City Council's lawyer, Boyd Hughes, that he has a choice to make.
Mr. Hughes recently filed a lawsuit against the city government and the Scranton Sewer Authority in behalf of Olde Good Things. The company contends that action by the city in the wake of a 2007 fire further damaged its property, while the city government contends that it's not at fault.
Mr. Hughes also has represented other parties against the city government, including in one active eminent domain case against the Scranton Redevelopment Authority.
City residents have the right to expect that the lawyers in their government's employ will work for that government rather than against it.
Mr. Hughes should decide whether he wishes to work for or against the city government's interests because he can't represent both. No lawyer should be in a position of suing a government while advising that government on policy decisions.
