|
Legal ethics generally prohibit attorneys from taking representation
adverse to their clients without permission from the client.
The rule says "a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest,"
which includes representing one client against another client.
Law firm in dispute with Maricopa County sanctioned by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez - Dec. 16, 2011 02:55 PM The Arizona Republic A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has imposed sanctions against a Phoenix law firm that represented Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas in legal disputes with the county's governing board, judges and others. Judge John A. Buttrick ordered the financial sanctions earlier this week against Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. for failing to appear for depositions and for failing to produce to the county its file for the legal advice that it performed for the county's Air Quality Department. As of Friday morning, it was unclear how much money Ogletree will have to pay the county. The fees will be determined by the court. John Doran, the attorney representing Ogletree, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys representing the county said in a hearing last week that Ogletree didn't show up to scheduled depositions, and refused to hand over records tied to about $300 worth of its work for the county's Air Quality Department. They believe records would show that Ogletree had accepted representation adverse to the county through Arpaio and Thomas while at the same time represented the county in the air quality matter. Legal ethics generally prohibit attorneys from taking representation adverse to their clients without permission from the client. The rule says "a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest," which includes representing one client against another client. "What are they trying to hide?" David Selden, a private attorney representing the county, asked in last week's hearing. "Pardon my energy over this issue ... but there are some attorneys in this courtroom which take ethical rules seriously. Strong sanctions by the court will finally get the attention of someone over there." In last week's hearing, Doran disputed Selden's statements and said the county had the records all along, and that county officials are intentionally trying to run up Ogletree's bills on the case to punish it for working for their enemies. "We don't want to litigate about an audit - we want to get paid," Doran told the judge, adding that an audit will "completely vindicate" Ogletree. Buttrick's ruling is tied to the county's attempts to audit billings related to Ogletree's representation of Arpaio and Thomas. The law firm has billed the county for more than $5 million over several years. By last fall, when the firm was fired by the county, it had been paid all but $1.1 million. The county has withheld the final $1.1 million, maintaining that Ogletree may have improperly expanded the scope of assignments, leading to duplication of legal services and billings. The county has claimed the firm refused to stop working certain cases, excessively subcontracted with attorneys, acted antagonistically and unprofessionally, promised to pay an expert $1,500 a month whether or not the expert provided any legal services, lacked transparency in billings and did not comply with county policies. Last January, the county sued Ogletree, saying the firm refused to turn over billing records that would show how it arrived at the amounts charged. Ogletree has said it has turned over records, and that certain information is protected by attorney-client confidentiality. Its attorneys accused the county of trying to gather information about Arpaio and Thomas to hand over to federal agents and state Bar investigators. The complaint contains numerous allegations, among them that the attorneys funneled payments to other experts in violation of the terms of their contract and the county's procurement code; lacked transparency in billings; failed to disclose relevant information in court; provided criminal-defense services to Arpaio's former chief deputy; helped file frivolous Bar complaints against county officials; and made disparaging comments to opposing counsel. Bar investigators are reviewing that complaint. Reach the reporter at yvonne.wingett@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-4712. |