City workshop on city attorney services next Tuesday

The new Ocala City Council is shown seated after three new council members were sworn in, along with Mayor Kent Guinn, who was re-sworn in during the Ocala City Council meeting in Ocala, Fla. on Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2021. The Council members are, from left: Jay Musleh, James Hilty, Ire Bethea, Ocala Mayor Kent Guinn, Kristen Dreyer, Barry Mansfield and City Manager, Sandra Wilson. [Bruce Ackerman/Ocala Gazette] 2021.

Home » Community

Posted January 19, 2022 | By Jennifer Hunt Murty

Following an announcement by the firm of Gilligan, Gooding, Batsel, Anderson & Phelan, PA that some of the city attorneys were splitting off and would be discontinuing their services to the city at the end of their contract in October 2022, the city council set a workshop to explore new options for legal services.

The workshop is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2022 at 12:00 p.m. in council chambers at City Hall and is open to the public.

The firm represented the city for approximately 30 years.

The current contract started Oct. 2020 runs for two years as prescribed by the city’s charter.

According to the city charter, the city attorneys appointed through this contract play a pivotal role in the operation of the city as “chief legal advisor to the council, the manager, and all city departments, offices, and agencies.”

In this role, the city charter says the city attorneys must approve every contract the city enters for “form and legality.” The charter states that the city attorney’s review “shall be for the benefit of the city only and not any other person or entity. No contract shall be voided or is voidable because of a deficient form and legality review.”

The city charter also holds that the city attorneys “shall represent the city in all legal proceedings and shall perform any other duties prescribed by this charter or by ordinance,” with the option of “retaining additional counsel in specific actions or proceedings in its discretion.”

Previously it was reported that the firm inserted a conflict-of-interest clause that was not in prior contracts.

The conflict-of-interest clause said, in short, that the city attorney had advised the city, and the city is aware that the firm also represents “private persons and entities” that include “developers or contractors” who “have relationships with, or seek approvals from, [the] city.”

The city attorneys did not discuss the clause with the council, or the city manager when the contract was entered. The clause only became realized and discussed openly during public meetings recently.

For instance, at the recent Jan. 18 city council meeting, Jimmy Gooding, in his capacity as city attorney disclosed to the council that the applicant bringing a request to annex into the city was a developer, John Rudnianyn, that Gooding also represented in matters outside the city. However, Gooding told the council that regarding the application before the council that night Fred Roberts was representing Gooding’s client.

Roberts assured the council that Gooding had nothing to do with the transaction and that the developer had waived the conflict of interest so that Gooding could represent the city.

Councilmember Kristen Dreyer asked if the city also needed to waive the conflict of interest.

Gooding answered, “No. You don’t. Because it is clearly understood that there is no conflict of interest because I’m not representing him on anything that deals with the city. We put that in all our agreements with the clients. If you all would like to have to do that each time. I’m happy for you to do that. But it’s not a requirement. There is no direct conflict of interest on that land-use matter because I’m not representing Mr. John Rudnianyn in that.

“By the way, this conversation is extremely important for me,” Gooding continued. “I was not wild about the publicity on the issue because we have always been extremely conscientious about avoiding conflicts with the city. And we’ve gone out of our way to try and avoid them. I’ve always said I’m happy to keep doing this job or not doing this job—at you all’s discretion. It just got to the point where more and more that we were having to sacrifice our private clients’ interests to the fact that they can’t get lawyers in the city.”

In further response to Dreyer’s question, Gooding reiterated that it wasn’t something the council needed to vote on, however, he said, “If anytime you all have any concern about anything that I did or my partners have done, and the possibility of any conflict, I would welcome you all to ask me about it and, for God’s sakes, please, get a different lawyer to represent you in the matter.

“Because I do not like to be in a situation that makes the city have any question about whether it is getting good legal advice or not,” Gooding said in closing.