Mark Litchford is the new East Ridge City Attorney.
Monday night in a special called meeting, the City Council voted 4-1 for Litchford, who was appointed the city’s interim attorney when Hal North resigned, to become the next City Attorney.
Litchford, an attorney with Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, was selected over finalist, Alexander McVeagh, an associate with the firm of Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel.
Mayor Brent Lambert set the ground rules for the meeting: each council member would be allowed to ask two questions during the interview of each finalist. At the conclusion of the questions the council had the option of taking some time to think over the next hire or act in hiring.
Two citizens spoke before the council prior to the interviews.
Laura Mathis asked Mayor Lambert if he would ask each candidate if they ever personally provided legal representation to any members of the City Council.
Matthew DeGlopper, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the council in 2016, urged the council to consider their “fiduciary responsibility” when hiring the new City Attorney. He noted that Litchford’s firm proposed an open-ended fee structure, ($8,000 per month retainer with a charge of $175 per hour for litigation and other services).
DeGlopper said that McVeagh’s firm was willing to take on the position at a flat fee ($110,000 per year). All things being equal, DeGlopper said, hire the firm with a known cost for budgetary reasons.
Mark Litchford
Litchford was interviewed first and fielded questions about his experience in municipal law, commercial development, personnel law, zoning, law governing housing authorities and his understanding of the Border Region Act. He has not represented anyone on the City Council.
Litchford noted that he did much work on behalf of the firm when GKH partner John Anderson was East Ridge City Attorney. He said that his involvement in assisting with Border Region Act issues helped get East Ridge certified and become only one of three cities in the state to do so.
He detailed his experience in matters of labor law on behalf of municipal employees who had grievances against their employers. He spoke of his development experience on behalf of companies and his ability to negotiate zoning and variance issues. Litchford spoke at length and with specificity about his understanding of “nuisance” law.
Councilman Jacky Cagle asked Litchford about how GKH may deal with any potential conflicts of interest which may arise. Cagle noted that he had asked City Manager Scott Miller to request an opinion from the state’s Board of Professional Responsibility concerning GKH representing developers doing business with the city and how Litchford would separate the city’s interests from other lawyer’s in the 30-member firm.
Litchford assured the council that each computer in the GKH law firm has its own “private” drive which can be accessed by only one person. All information from East Ridge could be kept in a personal computer with no outside access.
McVeagh’s interview proceeded along the same lines.
McVeagh, who has been the stand-in for North for more than three years, told of his experience helping draft ordinances for the City of East Ridge. The Vanderbilt Law graduate elaborated on his experience in Nashville as an undergraduate and the work he did as the head research analyst for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has not represented anyone on the Council.
McVeagh touted the expertise of 12 lawyers he could call on in the Chambliss firm with vast experience in municipal law, development and real estate law and governmental regulatory compliance.
In response to Cagle’s question about conflicts of interest, McVeagh said that the Tennessee Supreme Court “has looked unfavorably” on ethical screens, more commonly referred to as a “Chinese Wall.”
He said the idea of a Chinese Wall “sounds good on paper,” but that courts have held that the concept is just not realistic.
The council briefly discussed both candidates at the conclusion of the interview process.
Vice Mayor Larry Sewell noted that both candidates are “fine attorneys.” He said that the Chambilss firm had charged a flat fee when North was the City Attorney. That fee increased steadily from $90,000 a year initially to $132,000 in North’s final year.
“What’s to say this couldn’t happen again,” Sewell said.
Mayor Lambert noted the minutes from a Nov. 12, 2015 Council meeting when Attorney North was asked about Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel wanting a fee increase. According to Lambert, North stated in the minutes that “the volume and number of people working at a reduced rate was problematic.”
Lambert said that Chambliss’ proposal of a flat fee of $110,000 a year made him feel like the longtime customer who wanted to change companies. The firm is now offering a lower rate if the city keeps them.
“I’ve got a problem with that,” Lambert said.
He said there is no way of knowing what the city’s legal fees would be if Litchford were hired. Lambert said both men were capable and he would be fine if either were hired.
Councilwoman Esther Helton made a motion to hire Litchford. Councilman Cagle made the motion for McVeagh. The only vote for McVeah was courtesy of Cagle.
