"When you tell one lie, it leads to another
So you tell two lies to cover each other
Then you tell three lies, and oh, brother
By: Rich Bergeron
The ongoing litigation between Donahue Tucker and Ciandella (DTC) attorneys and the Town of Haverhill is pressing forward toward a summary judgment hearing scheduled for September 30, 2024. Both sides have filed their own summary judgment requests hoping to end the case before trial. However, it is clear the DTC defense is primarily designed to drown the town of Haverhill in a flood of ridiculously overblown and useless financial costs. It’s hard to believe the attorneys representing DTC could ever win on the facts and the merits involved.
The cancerous dual conflict featuring unclean hands on both sides of the DTC/Board of Selectmen attorney-client relationship we had here created a perfect storm of political and legal misconduct. The egregious legal misconduct continues unabated as the most recent paperwork from DTC attorneys proves the firm’s current counsel is too lazy to double check their clients' claims while those DTC clients are now doubling down on proven lies. We will break down all those lies and mischaracterizations in this piece.
The lack of due diligence by DTC attorneys and their current counsel is truly indefensible. The timeline of events encompassing the behavior that gave rise to this lawsuit is full of instances in which the original DTC attorneys obviously performed no real research into even the most basic rules, regulations and legal principles governing the Haverhill Board of Selectmen. Their current counsel performed no better in investigating the real background and facts of this current case.
The Haverhill Select Board Standard Operating Procedures provide board members clear direction and instruction on how that board is supposed to operate:
The SOP is the first and most crucial document DTC attorneys should have examined thoroughly before proceeding to represent the Haverhill Board of Selectmen without a duly authorized written agreement or appropriate public vote to waive the "potential" conflict of Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella Attorney Christopher Hawkins. It's clear that Hawkins and his colleagues either completely ignored the SOP or neglected to ever read and analyze the document properly.
 |
| DTC Attorney Christopher Hawkins |
The failure of Hawkins to get his ducks in a row on this subject is particularly concerning since he leads off his latest affidavit in support of this case by pointing out all the municipal political experience he has in his own hometown of Newmarket. "Since 2000, I have held many elected and appointed positions in the Town of
Newmarket, including the Town Council, School Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment,
Newmarket Charter Commission, Newmarket Tomorrow Committee, and the Recreation
Master Plan Committee," Hawkins testifies. "I have served as the Newmarket Town and School District
Moderator since 2014."
Hawkins also touts his professional experience on the very first page of the same affidavit, highlighting his ethical chops specifically:
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page one |
Hawkins was also a former legal representative of the Woodsville Fire District and a man who readily admits to being referred to the board by none other than Woodsville District Administrator Kevin Shelton.
 |
| Woodsville District Administrator Kevin Shelton |
If it's not bad enough that Hawkins and his colleagues were not so good at their jobs here, Attorney Jim Soucy (current DTC lead counsel) is absolutely off his rocker to ask for sanctions against the
town’s current attorney. Soucy’s complete and utter
failure to confront the documented facts of this case is what truly deserves sanctions. He and his colleagues handling this case should be subject to a detailed complaint to the NH Attorney Discipline System. Their lackluster approach to DTC's defense and their failure to investigate and properly account for the true facts of this case violates multiple tenets of the Rules of Professional Conduct for NH Attorneys.
The facts and exhibits
presented by the town in this case show without a doubt that the original DTC
attorneys were supposed to be well-versed in municipal law and ethics (which
the two primary attorneys Eric Maher and Christopher Hawkins both testify to in
their respective sworn affidavits). Yet, knowing Haverhill was a Town Manager
form of government, these two well-trained attorneys presented themselves,
their secretive services and their supposed contributions primarily to the
Haverhill Board of Selectmen. By taking this approach, they purposely ostracized a crucial cog in Town leadership, and they still seem to think they were justified to do so.
The DTC attorneys involved here were easily deceived and double-crossed by the conflicted board members involved. These same attorneys were also self-defeated by their severe, pronounced bias at the same time. They were lulled into taking their clients' representations as gospel, because those clients actually secretly wanted the conflict. They needed the conflict.
Attorney Hawkins admits above that the firm's clients were the board itself. DTC's new attorneys only now try to scream from the rooftops in legal documents that their client was really "The Town of Haverhill." It's written in plain English above: "The Board is the Client; not the Town Manager." Hawkins himself wrote that and sent it to a private Gmail account set up to allow the conflicted Select Board members to communicate with the DTC attorneys outside the bounds of their own official town email addresses.
The board blatantly lied from the jump about their authority to even be able to hire DTC in the first place. Attorney Hawkins and his Colleague Attorney Maher fell for every falsehood the board duped them with and never did any effective investigation into the vote to give the town manager authority over all of the town's legal affairs with Woodsville:
It was not the same board who hired DTC that made and carried this motion. I witnessed personally the subsequent conflicted board's lack of knowledge about correct processes and procedures by watching years of publicly accessible Select Board Meeting videos on the town's Web-site. Town Manager Codling repeatedly had to remind board members of the correct way to cast votes and proceed through meetings. This is why she ultimately instructed them that they had to "ratify" the DTC retention with a more detailed public vote. The fact that the board took her advice is crucial to this case.
The fact is, any formulation of any municipal board would be out of line to carry out this kind of rogue legal agenda without any requisite knowledge of the correct process of hiring attorneys, dealing with law firms, and handling employment contracts in general. This board in particular had no clue what they were really doing or how to do it right, but they negligently attempted to do it anyway, and they strung the DTC attorneys along to take the blame when the shit hit the fan for their royally fucking up the process. Both the attorneys involved and the conflicted board members obviously didn't bother to research and follow the law on conflict, either.
Attorney Hawkins admitted repeatedly in his own affidavit that Board Member Kevin Knapp effectively deceived him into thinking he represented the entire Haverhill Board of Selectmen. Knapp later admitted under public questioning from Former Board Member Matt Bjelobrk that "there was never supposed to be a bill" for Hawkins advising him at the time as a "private citizen."
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 3 |
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 4 |
You know how the saying goes. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you, but the third time was the charm for Hawkins and his DTC colleagues:
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 5 |
Hawkins inferred from an email overflowing with falsehoods from one sole member of the board that "the Town" had effectively retained his firm. The correct municipal process for retaining attorneys would ideally require an adequate public vote to hire DTC, a written retention agreement signed by all appropriate authorities on both sides of the contract, a valid public vote to waive the conflict, and the direct inclusion of the Town Manager over the entirety of the attorney/client relationship. (in alignment with the board's prior vote to give Codling "full authority over legal matters related to the Woodsville Precinct, its commissions, and enterprises.")
Hawkins just listened to what Knapp told him at the time and never lifted a finger to verify the alleged vote by checking meeting minutes or reviewing the hearing video. Additionally, Hawkins' co-counsel at DTC admits to not even thinking to check or verify that the alleged viable retention vote went exactly as Knapp described.
 |
| Attorney Eric Maher Affidavit, page 11 |
Board Member Kevin Knapp was certainly aware of the vote he never told Attorney Maher about. He tried to revoke that directive on April 25, 2022:
DTC's current counsel lies repeatedly and extremely unartfully about this reality by continuously pointing to statutory language providing instruction that the Town Manager serves "at the direction" of the board. Yet, how can these same attorneys not see what is right in front of their faces? The public vote by the board to delegate authority to Codling IS direction. It is documented, procedurally proper direction. Since there was a formal vote to give it, it follows that there needed to be a formal vote to rescind it. Knapp tried to accomplish one and failed.
It is completely
delusional of DTC’s counsel in this case to keep pointing to the State of New Hampshire’s
RSA governing the responsibilities of the Town Manager (Chapter 37
TOWN OR VILLAGE DISTRICT MANAGERS (state.nh.us)) as if it helps their case. These arguments are continuously presented in DTC's defense as if the board members could take charge "at any time." That approach is reflective of a complete lack of understanding by DTC Attorneys and their current counsel of the very statute they all claim to be relevant to their claims.
The top line of
Section 37:6 of the above-linked statute qualifies each corresponding tenet of the law
with the pre-amble: “The town manager shall have the power and it shall be his
duty:”
The ACTUAL bottom line of the same section is as follows:
IX. To perform such other duties, consistent with his
office, as may be
required of him by vote of the selectmen. (Emphasis Added)
A Town Manager
carrying out responsibilities given to her by way of a public Board of
Selectmen vote is certainly considered following direction from
the Board of Selectmen by all concepts of local law and basic logic. These attorneys from DTC, a
proud municipal law firm in this state representing multiple towns and cities,
somehow had no grasp or any ability to get a good working understanding of how selectmen regularly delegate their authority to Town Managers to
ensure the seamless execution of government business. This shows how powerfully disruptive and distracting a conflict of interest can really be in such circumstances.
The current
counsel for DTC also basically admitted in his own deposition questioning of Jennifer
Boucher that he really knew very little about even the most mundane aspects of how
bills were paid in a Town Manager form of government. Boucher basically had
to educate Attorney Jim Soucy on the subject. Boucher also had to break the news
that neither she, nor Town Manager Brigitte Codling were directly responsible
for rejecting DTC’s billing invoices. It was a new board who decided to forego
payment to DTC for the old board's questionable retention of the firm. The bills were not even sent to an official town address until
after the most corrupted board member involved in DTC’s hiring lost his
re-election bid. Longtime Woodsville
Fire District Employee Steve Robbins signed all the documentation notarizing
and certifying DTC’s supposedly authorized work for the entire town. Yet, for
some odd reason he had all the law firm’s bills sent to his own home address
until the town’s voters decided he wasn’t going to be a selectman anymore. And DTC's current counsel still tries to tell the judge in this case with a straight face that DTC was working for The Town of Haverhill.
There was also never any correctly pursued effort by the board to vote again on Codling's authority at any other subsequent public board meeting, even while the board was full of conflicted members secretly embracing the conflict of Attorney Hawkins. The above-referenced statements made by unconflicted board members like Bjelobrk are essential to keep in perspective. Rather than be in full control of all these legal scenarios, Bjelobrk pointed out that Codling was "the point of contact." She was responsible for communicating with the attorneys and handling contractual issues. The board just made the final decisions on cases and major legal issues that required their ultimate approval. Essentially, this belies the infinite beauty of a Town Manager form of government and all the glorious checks and balances that make it a perfect political mechanism of municipal administration. The board cannot possibly be justified in going rogue and trying to take full control of such issues under these circumstances. The fact is, the political system in Haverhill is designed for both the Town Manager and the board to work TOGETHER at all times on all serious legal matters impacting the town.
Another exhibit filed by DTC attorneys recently shows just how much of a flaming hypocrite Former Board Chairman Steve Robbins really was by attempting to exclude The Town Manager from discussions between the Board and DTC attorneys, even those discussions not in any way related to her employment/personnel issues. The exhibit is one DTC somehow claims to be favorable to their arguments. It is an email chain between Robbins and Codling and the rest of the board members.
Robbins admits: "All communication needs to be shared with all parties' real time."
"There are essentially 7 of us," Robbins also admits (There are only 5 board members). His sentiment reflects the inherent need for the Board as a whole to coordinate their efforts with Town Administration and ensure the two governing bodies cooperate efficiently and symbiotically. It defines the appropriate way any Town Manager form of government should naturally operate.
How can DTC attorneys reconcile these bold, undeniable statements as supportive of their case? As they say in all the best infomercials: "But, wait, there's more!"
That is perhaps the most succinct statement Steve Robbins ever made about the importance of doing things correctly, efficiently and by the book with the tax rate debacle. "...how we handle this will dictate the future of our town, and how we are seen as a group and individuals," he wrote. It turns out how the board ultimately handled these matters so sloppily and unprofessionally essentially dictated the need for the town to file and press the current case in dispute. The word "we" is persistent throughout these paragraphs and reflects an inclusive attitude toward the town manager that didn't quite mirror the behind-the-scenes reality Robbins was living at the time.
Robbins was directing DTC attorneys to exclude Codling from all legal discussions while singing a different tune entirely to Codling herself about the board's need to act collectively with her to solve the tax rate problem. The hypocrisy is astounding.
DTC Attorney Hawkins represented throughout his own testimony that his "potential conflict" was narrowly constrained to his participation in the "Woodsville litigation." Again, reality contradicts that claim and his true work history with Woodsville betrays a more pronounced general counsel role he carried out for the district. Hawkins was happy to even serve as a glorified bill collector for his friends in government over in Woodsville:
Hawkins was clearly a direct rival of Haverhill Town Manager Brigitte Codling in the ambulance service billing dispute. His tone in the demand letter is both adversarial and overtly threatening. Even after Hawkins stopped working for Woodsville, he kept himself updated on the very "Woodsville litigation" he tried to distance himself from in describing how it was proper for him to later work for the Town of Haverhill. An email he sent to Kevin Shelton in August of 2022 says it all:
The mini-pep-talk at the end is the real smoking gun aspect of this dispatch. Hawkins obviously had more than an attorney/client relationship with Shelton and a deep, personal disdain for Codling. This explains why Hawkins was so willing to step in to help Haverhill Select Board members attempt to oust Codling. This is certainly a textbook instance of why conflicts of interest like this should always be avoided by attorneys. This situation is only compounded exponentially when there is a severe conflict on both sides of the attorney/client relationship. Rules for board members of any kind in any municipality
within NH require conflicted members to not only abstain from voting, but they
are also required to refrain from even publicly discussing the conflicted issue
at meetings. They must in
all cases remove themselves from the discussion of such issues and sit in the
audience. Robbins’ employment by the very entity the tax rate setting would have a material financial impact on is completely relevant and crucial to deciding this case. The fact that voters were aware of Robbins being employed
by Woodsville does not exempt him from his duties to step down from any
official role as a Haverhill Board Member in all discussions and decisions
related in particular to Woodsville’s fire department or the Woodsville Fire
District, his direct employer at the time he served on the board.
Legal precedent cases also
suggest that a financial conflict involved in official municipality board votes
is the chief concern. There could be no quorum of board members supporting any
action by the board to hire or retain DTC due to the severe financial conflicts
Board Chair Steve Robbins and Board Member Kevin Knapp brought to the table that
disqualified them from participating. They were both at the time personally
employed by the Woodsville Fire District while they were discussing and voting on
issues that would materially impact Woodsville and potentially the employment
of a primary district rival (Brigitte Codling) standing in the way of future
Woodsville funding.
In Quinlan v.
City of Dover, 136 N.H. 226 (1992), a New Hampshire Court held that in a
legislative context, the mere fact that a city councilor has spoken out on one
side of an issue in advance (“prejudgment”) does not disqualify him/her from
voting on that issue. The Court repeated its statement from Michael v. City
of Rochester, 119 N.H. 734 (1979), however, that a financial
conflict-of-interest would void the vote if it determined the outcome.
As a general rule, a court will find that there is a
conflict of interest when a public officer is involved in a matter in which he
has a direct personal and pecuniary interest. See Preston v. Gillam, 104 N.H. 279 (1962)).
And a court will overturn a board’s decision if a disqualified person participated, whether or
not he or she influenced the outcome. See Appeal of Keene, 141 N.H. 797
(1997); Winslow v. Holderness Planning Board, 125 N.H. 262 (1984).
All this legal support is aside from the fact that the alleged initial vote to hire DTC for personnel matters admittedly took place entirely in a non-public session of the board. No published meeting minutes reflect any such vote took place. When a quorum of a public body is convened to discuss or act
upon matters within its jurisdiction, open-meeting requirements apply. See RSA
91-A:2.
Even the process of the conflicted board waiving the conflict of interest is in serious question. Not only was no public vote ever accomplished by the board to waive the DTC conflict, no public vote was ever even attempted to allow Board Member Steve Robbins to sign all the retention paperwork and the written conflict waiver on behalf of the entire board.
A governmental entity is held to a different standard when approving a written waiver since the public interest is involved. Guthrie Air v. Genesee County, N.Y., 597 F.Supp.1097, 1098 (W.D.N.Y. 1984)(“a municipality may not consent to adverse representation if the public interest is involved.”); RTC v. Fid. And Deposit Co. of Md., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22177, at *11 D.N.J. 1997)(noting a public entity may not be allowed to waive conflict). If the governing body is attempting to waive the conflict, it must take formal action to make such a decision to do so. Norton v. Town of Islip, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52961, at *8-9 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
It is not enough for one Selectman to sign a conflict waiver unless formal action is taken giving that Selectman such authority. In Moulton v. Beals, the New Hampshire SupremeCourt held: “[S]electmen have not been regarded as special agents of the Town, ‘clothed with the general powers of the corporate body for which they act’. They can only exercise such powers and perform such duties as are properly incident to the special and limited authority conferred on them by their office. They are empowered to do only such acts as are required to meet the exigencies of ordinary town business. Moulton v. Beals, 98 N.H. 461, 463 (1954). It was ordinary town business to let Codling and Boucher handle all the town's employment contracts. Why did the board alone feel the need to take charge of this one?
Codling’s authority to handle legal hiring and law firm
retention for the town was never dependent on whether or not the tax rate issue
was related to the WFD litigation. It is completely irrelevant to conflate the
two issues as dependent. The fact is, Codling was responsible for hiring legal
personnel to handle all issues related in any way to Woodsville and on top of
that, she handled at least some small part of the process for all town counsel
hiring. The tax rate setting issue was no doubt directly related to warrant
articles defining funding for two Woodsville municipal entities/departments.
The
relationship of this situation to the WFD litigation is only relevant in
consideration of the conflict of interest Attorney Hawkins repeatedly minimized
and downplayed in his relentless and personal pursuit to represent Haverhill’s Board of
Selectmen. This supposed valid representation primarily and admittedly supported
an effort to help corrupted board members terminate Codling’s position as Town
Manager. Whether or not DTC took a position on the warrant articles or not, the
warrant articles were related to Woodsville and the tax rate setting in
particular. Therefore, it was Codling’s authority to handle the hiring and
retention of legal counsel on the tax rate issue.
The board
members were not qualified or experienced in hiring legal counsel for
themselves or the town, and it seems their attorneys were not adept at teaching
them the ropes of the correct procedural process. In the event the personnel
issue made it difficult for Codling to handle her own employment matters,
Boucher testified that she would normally take over the hiring and retention of
a firm specializing in employment issues for any issue related to the Town
Manager’s contract or performance evaluation. Boucher also testified that the town was already engaged with
Mitchell Municipal Group and had an attorney available from that firm for
handling of such personnel issues at the time. The supposed contributions of
DTC were always duplicative and ineffective on the "personnel" front.
The board’s intense secrecy and
avoidance of Codling and Boucher during DTC’s supposed term of retention belied
an unholy set of motives for using Attorney Hawkins. It does not help the
situation that Hawkins was only brought in to work with the Haverhill Board of
Selectmen upon the recommendation of Woodsville Administrator Kevin Shelton.
Brigitte Codling's
and Jennifer Boucher’s detailed testimony proves they had much more knowledge
and experience as to how to execute the overall processes of hiring employees
in general and retaining legal counsel on behalf of the town properly. Codling
and Boucher both also played a vital role in all of the other contracts
Haverhill engaged in with all town employees. This is yet another reason that it is unacceptable that the board
secretly “hired” DTC and instructed them not to contact Codling or Boucher at
all about the “personnel” matter or the DRA tax rate delay.
If conflict was
not driving these folks on both sides of the alleged attorney-client
relationship, they might have done better at following the law and the standard
procedures for their professions. New Hampshire has a unique standard that
“when a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to
the representation” the conflict cannot be consented-to. In re Boyle’s Case,
611 A.2d 618, 619-620 (N.H. 1992). Clearly there was at least one attorney at
DTC who could have taken over for Hawkins to avoid such a conflict, but Hawkins
was personally and financially motivated to embrace the conflict instead of avoiding
it. So was the board, as Kevin Knapp stated in his own deposition that he never
thought to find an attorney who did not have a conflict:
The
representation of Haverhill by Drummond Woodsum (DW) in the "Woodsville Litigation" is key
here due to Hawkins having a clear personal rivalry with that firm, evidenced
by emails Hawkins himself provided as work product. Drummond Woodsum also
effectively represented the town in the tax rate matter. The DRA’s own official
letter about the end of the tax rate delay credited the DW firm for their work
and specifically criticized DTC attorneys.
Conflicts were involved in all corners of DTC's involvement due to Hawkins taking point on this case. Hawkins was trying to work
for the adversary he faced in a prior case, effectively working against or
around the same firm that rivaled him in that case. It was essentially a race
to get results that DTC would end up losing. There were far too many personal
feelings involved that should have disqualified Hawkins from ever getting
involved as an attorney for any Haverhill government official, never mind the whole town. This was
especially true in matters targeting Codling, a town employee Hawkins openly confessed
to wanting to get “burned” in the settlement of the prior litigation he was heavily
involved in. Even after all the allegations of impropriety the board and Hawkins spout about Codling, they did not advise the board to seek her termination in the end.
The Woodsville
warrant articles being denied by the DRA is what led to this litigation. It is
clearly the impetus for the tax rate issue (due to Woodsville’s appeal of the
DRA denial), which DTC purported to be working on for HAVERHILL. The evidence
shows that DTC attorneys did not actually have any impact on resolving the tax
rate issue and were actually using the tax rate issue as more of a diversion to
somehow accomplish the removal of Codling from office, which they also did
nothing to further for the corrupted board. The DRA itself more than acknowledged that DTC
attorneys hampered the tax rate issue rather than helping it.
DRA Revenue Counsel Peter Roth wrote a letter to DTC attorneys on January 23, 2023 memorializing the agency's perspective on DTC's overzealous approach to the tax rate matter. It was a formal response to a needlessly scathing letter DTC attorneys previously drafted to the DRA in which they basically threatened to sue the government agency for every unfilled pothole in town and every other possible negative contingency of the tax rate delay. Roth fired back in his own letter, explaining the DRA was already in the final phases of moving forward to set the town's tax rates when they received DTC's demanding missive. Roth further informed DTC attorneys that their letter arrived at the agency an hour AFTER his last conversation with a Drummond Woodsum lawyer working on behalf of the town to constructively handle the problem. Roth also clearly stated that he recognized Drummond Woodsum as official "town counsel" in the matter. Finally, he added:
This is a textbook example of piss poor legal work considering an affidavit is not the place for speculative rambling and informing the court of one's opinion. It is a document that is supposed to plainly list the uncontroverted facts a particular witness knows to be true. Because Hawkins cannot actually testify FOR Roth, he obviously tries to analyze and characterize Roth's sentiments in a light most favorable to him and his firm. It falls flat and feels a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. Roth's letter is by no means threatening, while DTC's letter to the DRA contained a long list of baseless threats to engage in litigation if the rates were not immediately set. And the only thing DTC was responsible for "exposing" here was their own incompetence in taking a tactless approach to a problem that called for much more constructive behavior. This is all aside from the fact that the same affidavit features Hawkins admitting:
Hawkins even goes on to psychoanalyze Roth's potential real motive for writing the letter when he speculates: "...the root cause of Attorney Roth's apparent anger, whether known to him or not, was that he had been misled and manipulated by Ms. Codling." Nowhere in this affidavit does Hawkins claim to be an expert in psychology qualified enough to extract such a nuanced conclusion from such straightforward writing. He's really trying to go deep into Roth's subconscious mind there as if he's an all-knowing psychic.
Later in the same affidavit, Hawkins described how he had the conflicted board members he was working with at the time drinking from the same jug of Kool Aid that caused his delusional thinking:
There was nothing "unbalanced" about Roth's response at all. Under the circumstances, Roth was very calm, collected and succinct in his characterization of DTC's "theatrics." It's a perfect word to describe the way Hawkins and his colleagues acted. They are still "acting" to make their behavior appear justified in a situation where their egregiously disrespectful approach severely discredited themselves and the firm they work for. Rather than apologize for their needless aggression, they choose to double down on it and try to bumble through an explanation of why the situation at hand actually called for that insane level of belligerence. Rather than pretend to be psychiatrists, I think these buffoons might need to hire a real one of their own to help them figure out what their major malfunction is.
Hawkins isn't the only one involved who attempted to analyze Roth's thought process in criticizing DTC's ridiculous demand letter. Kevin Knapp, under questioning by Town Counsel at his deposition, put it pretty bluntly when he provided his own speculation about Roth's psyche:
Knapp uses an interesting word here as well: "bullying." Only a pompous attorney with a severely over-inflated ego would assume it was a good idea to try to intimidate such a powerful state agency. Hawkins definitely fits that bill. This space cadet of a solicitor even tried to retract the recognition he gave to Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington for solving the tax rate issue when he actually forwarded a press release from her campaign staff where she took full credit for ending the rate setting delay.
“Please see below FYI a press release issued by Executive Councilor Warmington. It looks reasonably accurate based upon our experience working with her,” wrote Hawkins in the forwarding email. Hawkins also told the same board members in writing that Warmington "moved Heaven and Earth to champion the town's interests" to accomplish the resolution of the rate setting delay.
Yet, these days, Hawkins is singing a completely different tune and saying he never did give Warmington full credit. Maybe he doesn't understand that allowing her to give herself full credit is just as good as giving it himself.
The fact remains that DTC attorneys were not
even responsible for calling Warmington in to help. Selectman Steve
Robbins publicly acknowledged it was his own request to bring Warmington to the
table. Hawkins (through his current counsel) seems to think he can get away
with now denying Warmington deserved “full credit” for solving the tax rate
issue.
The press
release itself contains these key, very descriptive sentiments: “Her
[Warmington’s] efforts proved instrumental in DRA’s change of heart. She was
happy to hear that the situation had been resolved and that Haverhill’s schools
and town/precinct departments would remain open, “I’m very pleased that we were
able to get it resolved, and resolved very quickly.”
But wait, there's more. The twisted logic Hawkins follows up his political snub with claims that Warmington's "volunteer" status somehow made her work less meaningful:
Well, look what we have here. The last part of that paragraph reads more like a confession. DTC did fail the town by way of negligence and is still failing to come to terms with the damage their attorneys did in this case.
Further, the brief period during which the
tax rate was not set did not represent any financial catastrophe of any kind.
DTC attorneys repeatedly falsely characterized the late setting of the tax rate
in this manner on purpose, and they did so to find a way to quickly insinuate
themselves as legal representatives of Haverhill in order to further the
interests of Woodsville. The continued characterization by DTC’s attorneys of a
mere hiccup in the process of setting the tax rate as a “financial catastrophe”
is willfully deceptive and inaccurate. Councilor Warmington and Drummond
Woodsum attorneys in fact resolved the tax rate issue quickly and without any
adverse financial conditions being imposed on the town. They also did so without making any empty threats to file frivolous litigation or offending officials at the DRA in the process.
Haverhill Select
Board Members Kevin Knapp and Michael Graham initially contacted Hawkins to represent “the
town” for Codling “employment” issues. Hawkins admits such, but the retention
of DTC was later framed as necessary to solve the tax rate issue as well, which
DTC did not effectively resolve or have any real part in resolving. Hawkins simply used the DRA tax rate issues as a
smokescreen to get hired under false pretenses, which the firm then used to run
up bills for work that never came close to even bringing any kind of
disciplinary action against Codling. Additionally, they ran up bills on the tax
rate issue for work that had no material positive impact on the eventual
setting of the tax rate. The work more likely damaged the town’s reputation by
way of DTC’s overbearing and needlessly threatening tone in the demand letter
they claim twisted the DRA’s arm in deciding the tax rate issue.
Jennifer Boucher testified in her own deposition that DTC's senseless approach toward the DRA caused the town significant reputational damage. DTC's current counsel Attorney Jim Soucy only made matters worse for his clients when he pressed Boucher for details and garnered this response:
Again, a truly cancerous conflict on both sides of the attorney/client relationship between the board and DTC created the majority of the controversy here. Hawkins even
ensured he received “origination” credit from the DTC firm due to his previous
representation of Woodsville that led Haverhill board members to seek him out.
This is another reason the WFD case involvement is crucial and very material to
this case and all outstanding summary judgment motion paperwork. Hawkins clearly knew the "potential conflict" existed as he repeatedly told board members they
would need a written conflict waiver. He admits that the written conflict waiver and a conflict waiver by vote was needed
even in the case of a “potential conflict,” yet he failed to secure either one. He only acquired the alleged retention agreement from Robbins after much of the "work" described in billing entries had been completed. Also,
Hawkins could have recommended another group of DTC attorneys handle the case,
but instead he personally appears with Maher in the majority of the billing
entries. He had a genuine financial interest due to his origination credit
status potential and a personal interest due to his close relationship with Woodsville Administrator Kevin Shelton. Hawkins also knew at all times the board members seeking to
hire him wanted him BECAUSE of his conflict rather than in spite of it.
A simple fact check
reveals that Knapp was deceiving DTC attorneys from the jump, trying to get
free advice, and not really ready to officially hire the firm. However, the
firm proceeding as if they were already hired and it was pre-determined with no
vote or signed contract is suspicious to say the least.
 |
| Knapp Deposition, pages 87-88 |
In the
legal profession, you can still trust your client while also taking the time to
verify what your client tells you. DTC attorneys could have easily engaged in
that verification process by checking and reviewing all the records of the
meetings their clients characterize in their primary witness testimony.
By shutting out
Codling and Boucher, DTC attorneys also purposely left themselves out of the
loop as far as developments related to Drummond Woodsum’s work with the DRA. The
firm’s own responsive paperwork reveals no facts were ever checked on this
front by admitting in no uncertain terms: “DTC’s knowledge was limited to what
it was told by the board.” (See Hawkins’ Affidavit) That’s their own damn fault
for listening to the board alone in a Town Manager form of government like
Haverhill. It’s also proof that DTC was always working for “the board” and never
“the Town.”
DTC's work was also always duplicative and wasteful. Town Manager Brigitte Codling had already drafted a perfectly acceptable letter to DRA officials and other state leaders asking for rate setting relief before DTC even had their retention vote ratified by a board vote. She forwarded it to the board and asked for feedback on January 10, 2023. A text message Steve Robbins sent to Kevin Shelton in early January also indicates that a formal demand letter was already sent to the DRA from the town's existing lawyer, not a DTC attorney. So, Robbins knew Drummond Woodsum was handling the tax rate issue already as early as January 4th.
 |
| Part of a heavily redacted set of text messages between Steve Robbins and Woodsville Administrator Kevin Shelton Plan B Justice Group acquired by RSA 91A request. The top line is a text from Steve Robbins to Woodsville Administrator Kevin Shelton: "We have a letter from the lawyer going to demand DRA to set the tax rate, that should go out today." This was a text message Robbins sent during a written discussion with Shelton on January 4, 2023. |
Somehow, the board still went forward with trying to use DTC attorneys to deal with the DRA on top of Drummond's attorneys. They chose one primary DTC attorney in particular who came highly recommended by Woodsville Administrator Kevin Shelton.
Codling advised the board to ratify the DTC retention vote at the January 17, 2023 Haverhill Board of Selectmen Meeting if they actually intended to hire
DTC at a prior meeting. It was not the municipal legal experts the board "hired" at DTC who gave the board this guidance. It was the same person the board members told
DTC attorneys not to talk to. Even if the retention vote ratification could be considered valid, there was absolutely never a public vote by the board to waive the conflict Hawkins brought to the table. A firm cannot
perform work for a client in a conflict waiver scenario until that waiver is
acquired. A written waiver was not even signed by any board member until after the bulk of DTC's alleged "work" was done. Even then, that waiver is garbage because the most financially conflicted board member signed it.
It’s basic legal
facts like these that DTC attorneys are delusional to keep trying to
relentlessly ignore. They also admit that they do understand a formal
vote is needed to waive conflict and retain an attorney in a municipal
situation. Yet, even in the retention vote situation, there was no quorum of the board ever voting if Board Members
Knapp and Robbins can effectively be eliminated through challenging their
documented financial conflicts. They could have voted at a hundred public
meetings, and it didn’t matter because of their immediate need to disqualify
themselves that they ignored to carry out the DTC collusion.
Deceptive and
devious DTC attorneys were purposely acting primarily with one wing of a dual-party
government at the time. They proceeded under a cloak of secrecy and with direct
intent to follow the misguided instructions of conflicted board members without
respect for the law, procedure, or legal ethics.
This is all aside from the fact that the conflict Hawkins downplayed was so pronounced
it could be considered to be impermissible for the town to even operate under a
waiver of conflict in this scenario. Hawkins was a clear and undeniable
personal rival of Codling, and he handled communications with her previously in
regards to a contentious bill collection issue with the Woodsville Ambulance
Service. Hawkins also can’t account for the fact that the case he pursued at
one time on behalf of Woodsville was still having a direct financial impact on
Haverhill that intertwined with the tax rate issue. Woodsville was demanding final payment of the settlement of that lawsuit even as Haverhill was
trying to address the tax rate problem. Further, Hawkins does not deny that “origination” credit is also a financial benefit to him directly. He in fact states the necessity for him being assigned origination credit was: “for DTC’s internal bookkeeping purposes.” This is confirmation that Hawkins had both a personal bias that impacted his conflict as well as a financial motive to minimize his conflict instead of not taking the case. The reality is: his conflict also got him the job.
If at any point
it seemed that Codling and/or Boucher were alright with proceeding with DTC’s
guidance, it was because they were actively being deceived. They were not
properly informed about the procedural weaknesses involved and did not know the
extent to which Attorney Hawkins was involved. Their contact was DTC Attorney Eric Maher,
who Hawkins himself referred to as the “municipal expert” on the case.
Codling
and Boucher also repeatedly requested the documentation paperwork that would
have completed DTC’s valid hiring by “the town” and not as the board’s own
exclusive legal counsel. They also wanted to review the conflict paperwork. DTC
followed the board’s advice and purposely shunned both women from participating
in the process. Now these lame legal experts are claiming poverty of knowledge
about all the facts Codling could have told them if they were talking to her like
an equal player in the municipal game.
Hawkins clearly
had a conflict with the town manager herself, which magnified his need to keep
Codling in the dark about his own purported representation of the Board of
Selectmen. Further, Codling let her feelings be known about Hawkins having a
conflict in messages sent directly to DTC. Due to the tax rate issue having a
direct connection to Woodsville’s appeal of the DRA denial of the warrant
articles, it was Codling’s duty to handle the hiring and retention of all legal
counsel for the tax rate issue. The board never revoked that authority in any
formal fashion and could not legally do so "at any time" and definitely not in an informal fashion at a
non-meeting.
Knapp’s public attempt to formally revoke Codling’s authority failed, and that attempt
occurred right before individual board members (Graham and Knapp) initiated contact with Hawkins in the hopes of using his services to help them
terminate the town administrator’s employment. This made it convenient for
Hawkins to follow the supposed instructions of the board to not communicate
with Boucher or Codling on the tax rate issue or the "personnel" issue. Hawkins insisting he only had a
conflict under a certain nuanced scenario is disingenuous and deceptive. His
conflict was not with a principle as much as it was with a person: Codling.
Further, Knapp publicly stated that the conflict issues
were never discussed with the board, and though DTC maintains there was “an agreement”
by the board to waive the conflict, there was never a formal vote to waive the
conflict at any duly noticed public meeting. Though there is a contention that
board members were “polled” on the conflict issue, that does not equate to a
formal vote based on a formal motion at a public meeting. This is not just a matter of semantics
but more so acceptable governmental policy and procedure. Also, in his own deposition, Knapp showed he has a very poor memory of events. If you search the document for "I do not recall" and "don't recall" you find those phrases appear 22 times, including when Knapp is repeatedly asked about conflict discussions.
The bulk of DTC's "work" in
question was done long before any formal waiver or retention paperwork signed by any
board member was on file with DTC. Basic logic and legal analysis demands that this
crucial paperwork defining the scope of duties and responsibilities of the
associated attorneys must be in place before any legal work is rendered in the
case of a municipal representation. This paperwork was not on file until the
end of January, 2023. That was long after the tax rate issue was resolved by the efforts of
Drummond Woodsum and Councilor Warmington. This would not be such a significant
issue if there was at least retroactive language in the retention agreement
delineating that it covered work done prior to the delivery of a signed
agreement.
However, there was no such retroactive language in either the waiver
or the retention paperwork signed by Steve Robbins, who was duty bound to
recuse himself from any participation in the hiring due to the fact that he was
a direct employee of Woodsville and the chief of the Fire Department. No other
board member had more to gain financially if the warrant articles in dispute
were ratified by the DRA and/or funded by way of the tax rate setting.
A Town Manager
form of government cannot be led solely by the actions of the Board of
Selectmen. The whole reason for having a Town Manager form of government is to
ensure that board members are not saddled with duties and responsibilities they
are not trained or qualified to deal with. The blind loyalty shown to the board
DTC displayed is conclusive evidence that DTC attorneys were willing to forego
the ethical and legal analysis that any unconflicted attorney would conduct in
this case. They were also willing to ignore rules of procedure and the
principles behind the Town Manager form of government to further the interests
of board members sympathetic to Hawkins’ former client: Woodsville. DTC
attorneys obviously considered following instructions of conflicted board
members more important than following legal ethics principles in this case. These same attorneys obviously considered following the instructions of the board a much higher
priority than doing things “by the book” and executing the retention and waiver
process properly in a manner consistent with normal procedure.
DTC attorneys
make a key admission in their statement of facts:
“By way of further response,
DTC accepted that if the Board declined to waive conflict, DTC would be unable
to recover for the time it incurred up to that point. Hawkins Aff. ¶ 30.” (emphasis added)
No
valid conflict waiver was ever provided with a valid signature despite what
allegedly happened or didn't happen at any formal or informal board meeting. The same sentiment above is true if there was no valid waiver vote or documentation in place. It therefore follows that DTC
attorneys should have known they could never recover any compensation for their
time since there was never a valid conflict waiver in place to cover the two
issues they were allegedly retained by the town for.
Robbins could
not legally waive his own financial conflict, and his lone signature on the
waiver provided by DTC voids the document. Further, no public meeting vote to
waive the conflict was ever recorded on video or in any written public meeting
minutes. Communications between Woodsville District Administrator Kevin Shelton
and Robbins also prove that Robbins knew about his need to abstain from issues
connected to his employment with the district. Robbins sent a crucial text message to Woodsville Administrator Kevin Shelton in February, 2023 about
abstaining from a discussion pertaining to the Woodsville Fire Department:
Robbins was by
far the most conflicted member of the board involved, and all the DTC paperwork was initially sent to
his personal home address instead of any official Town of Haverhill address. His
signature on the documents invalidates them because he was duty-bound to recuse
himself from even discussing DTC’s hiring to handle the tax rate or the
personnel issue with Codling’s employment. Essentially this also naturally
revokes any public actions of the board involving Robbins’ participation. DTC’s own provided
testimony proves the only so-called “vote” to waive any conflict occurred at a
“non-meeting” that was never recorded. No meeting minutes exist to reflect the
circumstances of such a vote, and this violates New Hampshire’s RSA 91A Right
to Know Law. These circumstances
effectively revoke all the submitted waiver and retention paperwork, which was
not signed by any other board member and is wholly unsupported by any documented public vote.
The lack of a valid conflict waiver is a huge technicality, which the legal system is built upon. Nothing ends cases quicker than a giant technicality win. The monster technicality favoring the town is that there is no testimony documenting a formal board vote to waive DTC's conflict at a public board meeting. It is an end game situation. Also, DTC's desperate attempts to get some kind of financial relief by arguing they had a contract is a lose/lose scenario for their legal team. If they win the argument and prove they had a contract, their only recourse would be arbitration, which it's too late to file for. That ship has sailed.
If the board did have a "contract" with Donahue, Tucker and Ciandella, it never did get delivered until at least February 9th, 2023:
DTC attorneys
continue to repeatedly maintain the complete falsehood that they had a direct
positive impact on the rate setting simply because they received one email
informing them that the tax rate had been set. This is both disingenuous and
deceptive. This represents a willful violation of the NH rules of Attorney
Conduct on the part of the DTC attorneys initially involved in trying to sway
the DRA as well as the attorneys now representing those attorneys in this current
litigation.
Drummond
Woodsum attorneys were already communicating with DRA officials long before DTC
even made any attempt to demand the rate be set. Additionally, government
agencies do not make such decisions lightly or within such a short time frame
of a few hours, as is reflected by the DRA’s language in expressing their
frustration with DTC’s approach. Further, the letter itself that demanded the
tax rate be set by DRA was excessively threatening in nature and suggested
multiple lawsuits could be filed against DRA if it did not act to set the tax
rate. The parameters for such suggested lawsuits were hyperbolic and laughable.
Again, the demand letter itself
illustrates the depth of the rivalry between Hawkins and the DRA, further
compounding his conflict in representing Haverhill on the tax rate issue that involved the DRA directly. Hawkins also admitted in his affidavit that he had discussions with the DRA's counsel from the NH Department of Justice in which a quick resolution was suggested: convince Woodsville to drop their appeal that gave rise to the tax rate delay. Because of his conflict and history with Woodsville, Hawkins could never take such advice.
DTC’s own defensive documents proclaim: “DTC was taking
direction directly from the Selectboard and had been directed by the
Selectboard not to communicate with Ms. Codling or Ms. Boucher regarding the
tax rate dispute, and therefore DTC could accept direction or instructions from
Ms. Codling or Ms. Boucher only with the approval of the Selectboard. See
Hawkins Aff. ¶ 45; Maher Aff. ¶ 18”
This contention
defies all the principles on which a Town Manager government is based on. It is
clear the DTC attorneys did no independent assessment of the legality or
validity of such an approach restricting all communications on the tax rate
issue with the only person who was directly responsible for handling all legal
matters related to Woodsville. DTC cries ignorance here when it is their own
actions and inactions which led to their being uninformed. The board and the
DTC attorneys kept Codling and Boucher out of the loop at their own peril, as
both Codling and Boucher testified at length about their traditional roles in
the legal hiring and retention processes. Codling and Boucher had all the
experience in this arena while the board members DTC was listening to had none.
Boucher herself wrote a crucial email to Attorney Erich Maher at DTC on January 13, 2023.
 |
| Email From Jennifer Boucher to DTC Attorney Eric Maher and DTC Attorney Christopher Boldt, January 13, 2023 |
Only Codling had the authority to sign the retention and conflict
waiver documents as selectmen previously delegated that authority to her and
never formally revoked it. DTC has provided no evidence that the board ever
revoked that authority, and even if they somehow did, DTC attorneys and their
counsel do not have any evidence showing Codling was ever informed that her
authority was revoked. A falsehood continuously presented by DTC and their
counsel in this litigation does not negate the true facts supported by direct
evidence. DTC was also told as early as January 13, 2023 that Drummond Woodsum was ready to proceed.
The N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys describes a Conflict of Interest as follows:
"A conflict of interest exists “if: (1) the representation of
one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a
significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s
responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or by a personal interest
of the lawyer. N.H. R. Prof. Cond.1.7(a)."
Attorney Hawkins can check all the boxes there, as his conflict was not at all "potential." It was actual, and it was a pronounced conflict with multiple parties involved in all sides of this litigation. He created his own perfect storm of conflict that should be part of future legal and political textbooks as an example of what not to do in both professions.
While
DTC attorneys maintain repeatedly the board hired their firm and waived the
conflict on January 10, 2023, the meeting minutes from January 17th
reflect otherwise. (see page 10 of meeting minutes for January 17, 2023 Select Board Meeting):
"The Board noted there is no contract. Vice Chair Robbins
said there might be more correspondence. He believes the Select Board and
Administration need to discuss law firms in general."
Yet,
DTC’s testimony is that the entire board told them not to communicate at all
with Codling or Boucher regarding hiring DTC or any other issue related to the
tax rate setting delay. That contention by DTC does not match the sentiment
shared publicly by Robbins at the January 17, 2023 board meeting. The problem with lies is the story always changes. It's much easier to remember what really happened. Robbins wanted to hide his true intentions and repeatedly tripped himself up trying to.
Most states mandate a written agreement signed by all relevant parties be in place before legal representation of any party can be begin. This is how a Virginia law firm describes the importance of retainer agreements:
A retainer agreement governs your attorney/client
relationship, and you are not a client (and the attorney is not YOUR attorney)
until it is signed.
A
retainer agreement ensures that our malpractice coverage is triggered, too,
because we’ve undertaken to represent you as a client. It acts as a protective
force for both of us, so it’s really important. It’s also filled with lots of
important details.
What
is a retainer agreement and what does it do? - Hofheimer Family Law Firm
(hoflaw.com)
New Hampshire needs a good precedent case on this subject, and this could be it since DTC didn't acquire their own signed retention agreement on paper until sometime in early February, 2023. Steve Robbins sent text messages to Hawkins verifying that timing. See above photo.
DTC attorneys depend on some obscure language in the Rules of Professional Conduct for NH attorneys to explain why they could do their work without a governing retention agreement. The rule language they cite is moot in this case, however, as municipal client retentions are vastly different from those of private parties. There are much more strict requirements in New Hampshire municipal retentions due primarily to NH RSA 91A stipulations.
The Board did not ever sign
any conflict waiver for DTC to handle personnel issues. The board additionally
never voted to waive any conflict related to personnel issues at any duly
noticed public meeting. Attorney Hawkins in particular did not just serve as
counsel for Woodsville in relation to the lawsuit he admits to participating
in. Hawkins also previously performed general counsel duties for Woodsville
such as sending a demand letter to Haverhill Town Manager Brigitte Codling for
the district’s ambulance service payment on July 29, 2020.
Hawkins had more than a significant working
relationship with Woodsville and his history with the district gave him an
intense personal motivation to help the Haverhill Board of Selectmen retaliate
against Codling for her efforts to deny Woodsville’s highway and fire
departments continued funding. Further, there was never a formal vote at any
duly noticed public Haverhill Select Board Meeting where the board voted to hire DTC
attorneys for personnel issues.
Attorney
Christopher Hawkins having such pronounced experience as general counsel for Woodsville
in prior instances and his ongoing rivalry with Codling represented a concrete
conflict he purposely ignored to pursue the opportunity to purportedly work for
the Town of Haverhill. The conduct he exhibited while engaged in this supposed
attorney/client relationship with the board reflects his constant motivation to
protect the best interests of the district of Woodsville while pretending to
advance the best interests of the Town of Haverhill.
His history with Woodsville and his
behavior as an alleged representative of Haverhill are textbook examples of why
conflicted attorneys should refuse cases like this. Rather than alleviate any
concerns with Hawkins by choosing a different attorney at DTC to handle these
issues, DTC ensured Hawkins took the lead position and received origination
credit for his involvement in the case. Hawkins himself admitted he willingly
listened to board members who suggested he work around Codling and keep
communications with her to a bare minimum. This was not just the case for the
personnel issues he allegedly worked on. He also purposely avoided
communications with Codling on the tax rate issue that she alone was authorized
to retain legal counsel for. Hawkins additionally lied to board members and
the court by insisting through current counsel and his own sworn testimony
that there was only a “potential” conflict and no actual conflict involved.
DTC cannot possibly maintain a factual record to prove they were ever retained properly by the town. Any appearance of retention is invalidated by
multiple factors and circumstances previously described here. DTC attorneys
were well versed in the law and procedure that was acceptable and proper to
facilitate valid retention, but their actions and inactions nullified their
alleged retention and made DTC’s contentions that they were retained legally
indefensible.
DTC attorneys erroneously characterize
their gross misconduct and complete failure to follow proper procedure as
“work” when what they did had no benefit whatsoever to the town of Haverhill.
Rather than the board relying on DTC’s instructions, DTC admittedly relied on
the board’s instructions to make crucial decisions to the detriment of the town
and their own chances of recovering payment for their time invested. attorney Maher blatantly admits to representing the board, and the entire Select Board here:
The problem is, DTC was devoted only to the board. And that's a monster problem. They were never appropriately representing the entire town precisely because the board obviously attempted to hire them--and Hawkins in particular-- to do their bidding without instruction or direction from Codling. The board was truly a rogue faction of the town at that point and also went awry on following normal procedures for conflict waivers and retention agreements.
DTC's current counsel does not realize the extent to which his own clients have testified against themselves in this case. What these new attorneys getting duped might think backs all their crazy claims up and proves their points actually sinks their battleships.
When the whole subversive effort blew up in DTC's face, they wanted credit and money for their supposed material contributions. They deserve neither. Here's a little pep talk Hawkins sent to the board on January 17, 2023:
"You are doing the right thing and will be punished accordingly. You need to know in your heart of hearts that you are doing the right thing by the Town," Hawkins wrote. "Remember that the life of the Town is long and that this too shall pass. You just want to be recorded in its history as having done the right thing to the best of your collective ability."
Ain't that the truth, Chistopher? Good, solid advice right there. Except there were some real Game of Thrones political maneuvers being played on your firm and by your firm, and you let your conflict distract you from realizing what the conflicted board members were telling you might not be true.
DTC attorneys indeed relied blindly on the direction of a clearly conflicted board through every step of the process. They did so to their own detriment and failed to include the Town Manager in crucial discussions, also to their own detriment. Had DTC attorneys been open and honest with the Town Manager all along the way, they would have avoided the confusion and controversy they essentially created by allowing the board to play the role of legal advisor to them. DTC attorneys basically acted more like the client than the attorneys. Only a pronounced conflict could inspire an attorney to take such an approach. The current DTC attorneys obviously didn't perform any serious independent investigation of their own into the facts of the case. It's a legit Attorney Conduct issue and a potential sanctions motion could be in play for the town against both sets of slick and slimy solicitors.
The town realized no benefit from any action DTC took to review personnel matters related to Codling’s employment. It can certainly be argued that the town was damaged irreparably by the involvement of DTC attorneys in this regard. The board members who relied on DTC’s assistance also did not benefit at all from DTC’s involvement. On the contrary, one of them suffered a re-election defeat and two others were forced to resign. Kevin Knapp, the only remaining sitting board member involved, faced harsh public criticism from two prior board members for his role in bringing in DTC attorneys without proper authorization.
Former Board Member Matt Bjelobrk and Former Board Chair Fred Garofalo both publicly asked Knapp to resign. Knapp's little public fishing trip ultimately cost the town a lot of money it shouldn't be spending on such a plainly offensive and open-and-shut case of political and legal corruption. Knapp also personally voted to pursue this current case against DTC. Why he remains on the board and clings to his little position of power is a mystery in itself.
The lies are multiplying, and DTC and their attorneys are leading their case into deep quicksand. They are up to their necks in lies and will fatally choke on them on the legal battlefield. Plan B Justice Group will continue to chronicle the ins and outs of this litigation and report on the ultimate results. Stay tuned!
PLEASE READ AND SHARE ALL THE ARTICLES IN THE HAVERHILL/WOODSVILLE SERIES:
.jpeg)
