Lawyers...

“How’s my favorite lawyer today?” I asked Starr Warson one evening when he came to my cash register.  “Fine!” he said brightly, then dimmed a little and added “I hope that’s good...”
Our friendship solidified in an act of human caring, not politics, and it was easy to assure him “it’s good.” I know many fine people who are lawyers who practice their craft ethically. The disparagement many people feel toward that profession is created by two things: a fear of the power they are able to wield, and experience with law professionals who wield it unethically.  Sometimes it’s the people hiring them who wield them unethically, often the powerful.  Our dislike of lawyers is actually a distaste for uneven power relations.
The other day it occurred to me that, without lawyers, there would be no law, which in our political system is the way we establish our ever-evolving ethical code and try to protect the rights of people and business.  Many of our legislators who make the laws are lawyers, and the laws are fine-tuned by litigation.  Also, without lawyers our laws would be useless: without fear of ramifications when laws are broken, our land would be ruled by lawless people.
Which brings me to Lindsay.  Last week’s article on Steven Mecum’s public records lawsuit quoted City Manager Rich Wilkinson about the financial harm this and other lawsuits could cause the city, right on the verge of its recovery from multiple disasters, including the prior administration’s “financial mess.”  He failed to mention that one of the new provisions of his employment contract (unanimously approved May 22, 2012 without one question by the council,) could be equally damaging.  It reads “In the event of involuntary separation of the City Manager, he shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment as and for severance pay in an amount equal to eighteen (18) months salary.”  At his initial city manager salary alone ($12,000/mo.) that lump sum would be $216,000.  If you include his police chief salary as well, that puts it closer to $250,000.
Wilkinson also failed to mention that it wouldn’t have cost anything if Mecum’s  request had been treated respectfully.  Not only is there the potential $260,000 for Mecum’s attorney, Paul Boylan, there’s all the expense we’ve already paid for Nancy Jenner’s inadequate defense of the city and her firm’s bad legal advice about pursuing this course of action.
In an attempt to estimate that cost, I made a public records request to inspect all the billing statements/invoices for legal services from Oct. 2010 to May 2012, as well as a few other items.  Instead of the normal phone call from Maria Knutson advising me when the materials were ready, I received a two-page letter signed by Maria but clearly written by a lawyer.  From the language, I suspect it was Nancy Jenner herself, because the logic matched what I heard in the courtroom when she tried to make her case before Judge Reed.  After sifting through the legalese, her letter basically said it’s not in the public interest to know what they’re charging us for:  “the public interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
What kind of person could make that statement?  Only someone with an interest in keeping the public blind.  Is it the lawyer, or the people employing the lawyer?  That’s in the public’s interest to know.