Judge rules Chatham County must pay probate judge's attorney fees
Posted: July 1, 2014 - 11:14pm | Updated: July 2, 2014 - 10:34am
Chatham County Courthouse
Related Stories
Chatham County must pay the attorney fees of the county’s probate judge, who is suing the county over his compensation, a judge ruled on Tuesday.
In his quick opinion from the bench, Liberty County Superior Court Judge Charles Rose Jr. said a conflict of interest exists between County Attorney Jon Hart representing both the county and a county officer, Probate Judge Harris Lewis, in the civil case, necessitating outside counsel.
He cited Dougherty County v. Saba, a 2004 Georgia Supreme Court case, in his decision.
“There’s no question that Judge Lewis as a Probate judge is protected under (state code 45-9-21 (e)(2)),” said Rose, who was appointed to the case after local judges recused themselves.
Furthermore, he rejected Hart’s argument that the county commission hadn’t been properly made aware of Lewis’ complaint, but he postponed making a decision on when the attorney fees should be paid.
Hart said the county’s 2015 budget, adopted on Friday, hadn’t factored such costs.
The county’s bill so far totals $6,000, said Owen Murphy, Lewis’s attorney.
Tuesday’s show cause hearing lasted just over half an hour.
The matter was limited to the question of whether the county was obligated to
allow Lewis to retain outside counsel and, as such, pay his attorney fees. However, in defending the county and its commissioners, Hart touched on the underlying issue of compensation.
Hart argued the case isn’t about Lewis attempting to set a precedent for how the probate court judge is paid. Lewis, he said, didn’t even include a salary increase in the budget his office presented to the county. Mark Bucalo, a senior budget management analyst in the county’s finance department, testified to that information.
“This is a personal venture on behalf of the judge seeking the county to raise his salary under a local ordinance when they already far exceed the state minimum and believe they’ve calculated it correctly under the local ordinance,” said Hart.
“This is just an ordinary, garden-variety salary dispute. There is no case of controversy concerning his carrying out his duties. I’m sure the judge does his duty every day, does it efficiently and does it as a Probate judge ought to. And that has nothing to do with whether he makes a dollar more or less.”
In his cross-examination of Bucalo, Murphy alluded to a meeting last year in which he suggested Lewis met with Hart and was told the county commission would not grant a salary adjustment.
On May 6, Murphy, on behalf of Lewis, filed suit against the county and commissioners. He argued his client should have received two 5 percent longevity pay increases and corresponding back pay when the county’s Magistrate and Recorder’s court judges were awarded such raises.
He asked that the increases be made retroactive through back pay.
“The compensation of the office of the judge of Probate Court has everything to do with the duties and office of the Probate Court,” Murphy argued Tuesday. “It’s not some personal misadventure.”
After the ruling, Hart told the judge he would like to resolve the underlying issues related to compensation in the dispute “once and for all.” Several other judges and constitutional officers, he said, have interpreted the statute differently from Lewis.
Seated behind Lewis in the second-floor courtroom was county Superior Court Clerk Dan Massey and his attorney, Steve Scheer, who have asked the county to adjust Massey’s salary.
Rose said he doesn’t see a reason why the case can’t be finalized within the next month or two.
In his quick opinion from the bench, Liberty County Superior Court Judge Charles Rose Jr. said a conflict of interest exists between County Attorney Jon Hart representing both the county and a county officer, Probate Judge Harris Lewis, in the civil case, necessitating outside counsel.
He cited Dougherty County v. Saba, a 2004 Georgia Supreme Court case, in his decision.
“There’s no question that Judge Lewis as a Probate judge is protected under (state code 45-9-21 (e)(2)),” said Rose, who was appointed to the case after local judges recused themselves.
Furthermore, he rejected Hart’s argument that the county commission hadn’t been properly made aware of Lewis’ complaint, but he postponed making a decision on when the attorney fees should be paid.
Hart said the county’s 2015 budget, adopted on Friday, hadn’t factored such costs.
The county’s bill so far totals $6,000, said Owen Murphy, Lewis’s attorney.
Tuesday’s show cause hearing lasted just over half an hour.
The matter was limited to the question of whether the county was obligated to
allow Lewis to retain outside counsel and, as such, pay his attorney fees. However, in defending the county and its commissioners, Hart touched on the underlying issue of compensation.
Hart argued the case isn’t about Lewis attempting to set a precedent for how the probate court judge is paid. Lewis, he said, didn’t even include a salary increase in the budget his office presented to the county. Mark Bucalo, a senior budget management analyst in the county’s finance department, testified to that information.
“This is a personal venture on behalf of the judge seeking the county to raise his salary under a local ordinance when they already far exceed the state minimum and believe they’ve calculated it correctly under the local ordinance,” said Hart.
“This is just an ordinary, garden-variety salary dispute. There is no case of controversy concerning his carrying out his duties. I’m sure the judge does his duty every day, does it efficiently and does it as a Probate judge ought to. And that has nothing to do with whether he makes a dollar more or less.”
In his cross-examination of Bucalo, Murphy alluded to a meeting last year in which he suggested Lewis met with Hart and was told the county commission would not grant a salary adjustment.
On May 6, Murphy, on behalf of Lewis, filed suit against the county and commissioners. He argued his client should have received two 5 percent longevity pay increases and corresponding back pay when the county’s Magistrate and Recorder’s court judges were awarded such raises.
He asked that the increases be made retroactive through back pay.
“The compensation of the office of the judge of Probate Court has everything to do with the duties and office of the Probate Court,” Murphy argued Tuesday. “It’s not some personal misadventure.”
After the ruling, Hart told the judge he would like to resolve the underlying issues related to compensation in the dispute “once and for all.” Several other judges and constitutional officers, he said, have interpreted the statute differently from Lewis.
Seated behind Lewis in the second-floor courtroom was county Superior Court Clerk Dan Massey and his attorney, Steve Scheer, who have asked the county to adjust Massey’s salary.
Rose said he doesn’t see a reason why the case can’t be finalized within the next month or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.