Darr’s attorneys fire back, accuse city’s attorneys of violating court order

Attorneys for Sheriff John Darr in his lawsuit against the city responded to a recent filing by the city’s attorneys with a filing of their own, accusing them of violating a court order and of attempting to “frustrate and limit the scope” of Darr’s right to independent counsel.

The motion asks Superior Court Judge Philip Raymond to strike the earlier filing from the record.

Lawyers for the city immediately filed a response to the motion to strike.

Attorney Kellye Moore, of the firm of Walker, Hulbert, Gray and Moore of Perry, Ga., filed the motion to strike on Tuesday, after a newspaper story appeared in the Ledger-Enquirer citing a recent bill Moore had submitted to Superior Court for review.

Moore’s motion contends that by filing an objection to the invoice and including the invoice in the filing, then providing the invoice to the Ledger-Enquirer (in response to a Georgia Open Records Act request), the city had acted in violation of an earlier order ruling that the invoices be submitted in camera, or off the official record and not for public dissemination.

The letter “must be stricken from the record as the filing is in direct violation of the court’s orders requiring in camera submission of privileged documents,” the filing reads. “Furthermore, defendants’ filing is yet another attempt in a long line of extensive, exhaustive and expensive legal tactics and inconsistent positions designed to frustrate and limit the scope of Sheriff Darr’s right to independent counsel.”

Darr’s legal invoices were originally submitted only to the court for approval, then paid by the city. When Raymond took over the case after Judge Hilton Fuller recused himself, responding to concerns expressed by the city’s attorneys, he changed that system to include sending redacted copies of the invoices to the city’s attorneys also.

However, “remaining in full force and effect was the April 2015 order’s protection of an in camera submission to the court,” the motion reads. “Defendants’ disregard of the court’s orders by filing these privileged documents of record demonstrates not only a lack of deference to the court’s authority, but a lack of respect for the integrity of the judicial process and the safeguards put in place by the court to protect the adversarial system.”

Ivey said Moore is mistaken in considering the redacted invoices “privileged.” The act of redacting certain information is to make sure the defense counsel does not see privileged material, he said.

“Ms. Moore’s recent motion is patently frivolous,” Ivey said.

Regarding the letter itself, Ivey said it was simply a way to “raise a concern” about the sheriff apparently using counsel paid by the taxpayers to help him prepare for a meeting with Columbus Council, which they consider improper.

“We were completely within our rights to raise any and all concerns with respect to submitted invoices and will continue to do so should the need arise,” Ivey said.

Moore also contends that the city’s repetitive filings, to which she and other attorneys for Darr must respond, are one reason the legal fees in the Darr case are as high as they are.

“Defendants’ objection to and litigation over Sheriff Darr’s right to independent counsel under (state law) has been extensive, exhaustive and expensive,” Moore writes.

Ivey countered that it is the plaintiff attorneys who are dragging out the legal proceedings and running up higher bills. He gave as a recent example a letter the defense sent to the plaintiffs asking that Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and the other city executive named in the suit be removed because all claims against them had been dismissed by the judge. They declined, saying such a move might hamper their ability to file appeals down the road, Ivey said.

“As a result, we were forced to file a motion seeking to have the executive defendants dismissed,” Ivey said. “This only results in needless delays and unnecessary cost to the taxpayers.”

To date, the city has spent about $2.8 million on legal fees in the three lawsuits. The city has spent much more on defense attorneys than for Darr’s and Pierce’s plaintiff attorneys, according to city records.

Darr is one of four elected officials who sued the city, Columbus Council and the city’s top executive leadership over budget issues in late 2014. Because Darr and Superior Court Clerk Linda Pierce are constitutional officers, state law compels the city to pay for their attorney fees. Marshal Greg Countryman and Municipal Court Clerk Vivian Creighton Bishop, the other two elected officials who co-filed a joint suit, are not constitutional officers, so they must pay their own legal fees.

All three lawsuits have made their way up to the appellate level and back to Superior Court, where they await adjudication. Most of Darr’s case has been dismissed along the way, with the only issue remaining to be decided is the sufficiency of Darr’s budget to carry out his responsibilities as required by state law.

The city recently filed a motion for summary judgment in what remains of the Darr case, but the judge has yet to respond to that motion.

This story was originally published August 19, 2016 at 4:08 PM with the headline "Darr’s attorneys fire back, accuse city’s attorneys of violating court order."