The Rutherford Neighborhood Alliance (RNA) encourages the county to have its own legal department instead of jobbing out cases to a legal firm. That group sent letters to County Mayor Ernest Burgess and all commissioners dealing with concerns about potential irregularities in the billing practices of the Cope, Hudson, Reed & McCreary, LLC law firm in regards to work they have done as Rutherford County's legal representative.

RNA President Susan Allen told News Radio WGNS, "Our goal is for the County to terminate the current Legal Services Agreement and create an in-house council position that would ensure transparency and benefit the taxpayer."

In the letter to the county mayor and commissioners, the group said, "We (RNA) recently became concerned regarding the County Attorney position. As a result, we began to review policies that could help direct the Commission as to what options you may have now regarding this position.

According to the Second Amendment to Legal Service Agreement, specifically paragraph 5(M), it reads, 'In the event the County Attorney James C. Cope becomes incapacitated, convicted of a criminal offense, or is publicly disciplined by the Board of Professional Responsibility, the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners may terminate this Legal Services Agreement without penalty.'

On June 12, 2014, the County Commission agreed to extend the legal services contract with Cope, Hudson, Reed and McCreary and adopted the Third Amendment. Specifically, paragraph 2 of the Third Amendment reads, 'McCreary is hereby elected and appointed as Assistant County Attorney for the same term as above. In the event, Cope should vacate his office during the term or become incapacitated, McCreary shall assume said office for the remainder of the term under the terms of the Legal Services Agreement as amended.'

RNA Feel County Should Have Its Own Legal Department

Upon reviewing the plain terms of the Service Agreement, we (RNA) believe that you as a County Commission may proceed under the Second Amendment paragraph 5(M) since that is the only provision that covers what is to occur in the event of a criminal conviction or public discipline by the Board of Professional Responsibility. We (RNA) hope you will consider this as one of your options about how to proceed.

While we (RNA) believe that Mr. McCreary is an excellent lawyer, there is nothing in place that allows a check or balance under the current system or contract. For instance, what would occur in the event Mr. McCreary could not serve? It is our (RNA) concern that any appearance of impropriety would impede the public confidence in you and in our local system.

Next, we (RNA) are concerned that there does not seem to be a check or balance in place as to the County Attorney position. The County Attorney is currently required to answer to the Mayor and County Commission, but is also responsible for all litigation on the behalf of the County. However, this design does not have any person that is familiar with the industry standards to ensure that over-billing is not occurring or that unnecessary litigation is taking place.

Perhaps the most appropriate solution would be an in-house counsel position to be created for the benefit of our County. This position would be designed to answer the legal questions posed by the County Commission, Mayor and many departments within the County. The designated person could still negotiate condemnation cases but in cases involving extensive litigation would be sent to a private firm.

The County Attorney would then be responsible for analyzing litigation and the expenses incurred by those outside firms to ensure the expenses were not self-generated and were in line with the industry standards. This solution would also address any difficulties in a conflict of interest issue as recently seen with the Sheriff's case. Under this scenario, the County Commission would be better informed regarding a cost analysis before litigation would be considered.

Based upon our (RNA) research, many of the surrounding county and city governments work under this model. We (RNA) believe this new model would be a benefit for all involved but especially the taxpayer."

Addendum

The Rutherford Neighborhood Alliance included an addendum with their suggested changes. Here is the wording of that document:

In documents Rutherford Neighborhood Alliance has received through a Freedom of Information Act request, we have discovered what we believe to be possible irregularities in the billing practices of the Cope, Hudson, Reed & McCreary, LLC law firm in regards to work they have done for Rutherford County as part of their work as the county's legal representative. We think that the County Commission would be well advised to investigate these matters further. While we have documents pertaining to many cases in which Cope, Hudson, Reed & McCreary represented Rutherford County, we would like to present the Commission with matters pertaining to three cases which we think are of particular interest: 1) the widening of Halls Hill Pike, 2) the purchase of land from Brad Huebner for the Eagleville school, 3) the firm's work on the legal services agreement which formalized the firm's relationship with the county. I. Halls Hill Pike Halls Hill Pike, which runs through the communities of Sharpsville and Halls Hill in northeast Rutherford County, was widened from 16' to 24'. Although the land required for the project could have been purchased directly by the county from the various property owners, James C. Cope, as the county attorney, required the county to acquire the land through the process of condemnation. The county acquired approximately 100 pieces of property in this manner but, just in the matter of six lots, the fees charged by Cope, Hudson, Reed & McCreary totaled $77,024.10 for land that was purchased for $20,345.66. A process that results in legal fee that is almost four times greater than the value of the land can reasonably be seen as problematic and worthy of further investigation

II. Case #41381 In the late 1990's, expansion of the Eagleville school required the purchase of seven acres from Brad Huebner. The county acquired the land through the process of condemnation. The process extended from 1998 to 2013 (requiring 271 court filings) when the county finally acquired the land for $70,680. The legal fee was $125,136.84. Again, a process that results in a legal fee approaching almost double the value of the land can reasonably be seen as problematic and worthy of further investigation.

III. Bills for work on the Legal Services Agreement In May 2012, James C. Cope, Evan Cope, Roger Hudson, Thomas Santel, Jr., Jeff Reed, and Josh McCreary, all members of Cope, Hudson, Reed & McCreary, LLC, consulted with each other (and others) regarding the contract they were preparing to formalize the relationship between Rutherford County and James C. Cope as County Attorney and as a member of his law firm or its successors as the legal representatives for the county. For this month alone and for work solely on this matter the firm billed the county $10,000 for a total of 53.4 hours. That they would bill the county for conversations regarding a contract they were preparing themselves for a relationship in which they were one of the contractual parties gives the appearance of being possibly unethical, legally problematic, and fiscally grasping. Again, this is a matter the Rutherford Neighborhood Alliance believes county commissioners should deem worthy of review.