"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, brotherThe 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.
 |
| DTC Attorney Christopher Hawkins |
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page one |
 |
| Woodsville District Administrator Kevin Shelton |
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 3 |
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 4 |
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 5 |
 |
| 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:
 |
| Haverhill Select Board Meeting Minutes from April 25, 2020 |
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.
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.
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
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:
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, Page 16 |
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:
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, page 17 |
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 Deposition, page 102 |
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.
 |
| Hawkins Affidavit, Page 21 |
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:
.jpeg) |
| Boucher Deposition, page 87 |
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.
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.
“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:
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 Attorney Eric Maher Affidavit, page 10 |
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:
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."
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment