Friday, January 17, 2014

Musings: Calling All (Free) Lawyers

Kauai County is now accepting applications from attorneys who are willing to wage a pro bono defense of its highly publicized pesticide/GMO disclosure bill.

Pioneer, Syngenta and Agrigenetics (DOW) filed a complaint in federal District Court last Friday seeking to overturn Bill 2491 (now Ordinance 960). The agrochemical companies — three of five agricultural enterprises on Kauai affected by the new law — claim it's discriminatory, pre-empted by state and federal law, irrational and a violation of the county's own charter.

As the bill was making its way through the County Council and past a mayoral veto, a number of attorneys promised a pro bono defense if the county got sued. Now it's time for them to ante up.

In a Nov. 5, 2013 guest commentary in The Garden Island, bill co-sponsor Councilman Gary Hooser wrote, “We have taken prudent steps to cover our legal bases.” He went on to claim:

Local attorney and former head of the Kauai Bar Association Teresa Tico, and nationally known attorney and head of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Peter Schey, have both agreed in writing to defend the County of Kauai pro bono should Bill 2491 be challenged in court.

In addition, Paul Achitoff of Earth Justice and George Kimbrell of The Center for Food Safety have also offered in writing their pro bono representation of community groups who would join as intervenors in defending the county position.

Achitoff was previously quoted as saying “he believes the county attorney was biased in his analysis, overestimating the strength of the seed industry’s argument. “A lot of his opinion reads as if he cut and pasted from the industry’s lawyers, rather than doing some real work and figuring out how is this case really likely to be decided in court,” Achitoff said.

I'll be curious to see how Achitoff drafts his response to the actual complaint. Assuming, of course, he is selected to work with the county attorneys he previously tried to discredit.

Though the county previously used pro bono legal services in the dispute between the Police Commission and the mayor over who has authority to discipline the chief, it's not a common occurrence. I asked county spokeswoman Beth Tokioka how the process would work:

Allow me to preface our response with an explanation of how legal services must be procured pursuant to State Procurement Law.  Legal services fall under a category of "Professional Services,"  as defined in HRS 103D-304 and Hawaii Administrative Rules Sub Chapter 7,  for which we issue an annual solicitation of firms who wish to be considered for special counsel services during the fiscal year.  This solicitation must be issued in June of any given year, and the list of firms who respond and are deemed qualified for consideration will be developed for consideration for the period of July 1-June 30 of the following year.  Should funding for special council services be approved at any time during the year, the list is reviewed and a selection committee will meet to rank firms based on the needs of the case.  The issues pertaining to cost are subject to negotiations between the Office of the County Attorney and the highest ranked law firm.  While pro bono services are rare, there is nothing in the procurement code that disallows a selected law firm or attorney  from offering pro bono legal services.

The use of pro bono attorneys for special counsel purposes is not the norm.  In the case of the Kauai Police Commission, the firm hired to provide special counsel services to the commission was selected via this process and was initially paid for its services.  Once the initial ruling came from the court, the firm offered to provide services for appeal on a pro-bono basis.  The important thing to remember in this instance is that the original procurement was NOT for pro-bono services.  The contract was amended in February 2013 to reflect the extension on a pro-bono basis.

In the case of Ordinance 960, the issue of pro bono special counsel services is clearly beyond the norm in terms of procurement.  During the course of the debate and deliberations  with regard to Act 2491, representations were made by certain law firms that defense services would be provided to the County pro bono, in the event that the County was sued.  As stated earlier, the County procures all professional services special counsel requirements (of which attorneys for special counsel are included) in June of each fiscal year for the subsequent fiscal year.    Again, this is required by statute.   A new procurement for the same services can be pursued if the department head conveys to the procurement officer that new or unmet needs have arisen that mandate a new procurement.  In the case of the anticipated special counsel needs for Ordinance 960, it was determined that the potential for pro bono legal services met the requirements  of a “new” condition, thus allowing for a subsequent competitive procurement to pursue such services.   As such, the County will be letting a formal and competitive solicitation for professional services to pursue the services of pro bono special counsel to defend the County regarding Ordinance 960.  The solicitation is being let competitively to provide the opportunity for all interested  law firms to submit resumes and letters of intent for consideration.  

Please note that in our solicitation, "pro bono" will be clearly defined as “professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment as well as donation of all related litigation and collateral costs and expenses, including but not limited to court costs, court reporter costs, travel and per diem expenses, copying expenses, legal research expenses, communication expenses, expert fees.”

In the event that there are no qualified responses to this new solicitation, we will need to then revert to the previously solicited list of qualified firms and negotiate fees with the highest ranked firm out of a selection committee process. 

I, and many others, including the county attorney's office, have criticized serious weaknesses in the bill, which was drafted and endorsed by pro bono attorneys who deemed it “bullet proof.” So what if they were wrong in their assessment? Or what if they simply don't have the legal chops to wage a winning defense against the chem corps' team of formidable attorneys? Who will pay then?

I posed that query to Beth, and got this response (emphasis in the original):

The Plaintiffs in the case “pray that [the] Court: award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” amongst other things. This means that the County as the Defendant would be responsible for such amounts.

Meanwhile, the Council has agreed to reconsider the resolution authorizing an Environmental and Public Health Impacts Study (EPHIS) — the mechanism that is intended to assess whether the practices of the biotech seed companies are harming people and nature.

As I've previously reported, the EPHIS is extremely wide-reaching, proposing a scope of work far beyond the $100,000 allocated for the process and the remaining one-year life span of the authorizing resolution.

Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura expressed concerns that the Council had gone too far afield in directing a joint fact-finding group to examine and report on findings regarding “economic impacts, food sustainability and environmental justice.”

Her colleagues agreed on Wednesday to revisit the resolution, which is set for a special meeting on Jan. 22.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what of posers like yukimura who undermined the legality of the bill before they voted on it, now they go to court on a fucked up bill.
Do i understand right that the pro bono attorneys could put on a crappy defense and the county would owe the damages? Sounds like a bad scenario

Anonymous said...

Guess that is the end of Furfaro being a good money manager. This may be his last term if that is the case, all his years of good service will be overshadowed by financial gloom for Kauai.

Anonymous said...

As we are talking about how much money this lawsuit may cost the County, has anyone ever asked the question, "who pays for Gary Hooser's airfare to Honolulu when he goes to the Legislature?" He is there several days a week, advocating for/against measures that the County Council has not taken a position on. If he is representing himself, did he pay his own airfare? If the County paid his airfare, should he be lobbying for/against bills not part of the Council's package? The ethics commission should take a look. He did this all year last year on labeling and PLDC when the Council had no official position.

Anonymous said...

What is the cost of a child with birth defects?

Anonymous said...

12:36

Good question. Maybe medical studies should be top priority rather than EPHIS to help determine whether your emotionally compelling but unfortunately dividing comment could be factual - or, just as sadly, due to one of the other multitude of possibilities from which birth defects arise?
peace

Anonymous said...

...factual, read "factually debatable".

Now there is a debate - as our consumption/greed and the comfortable entitled relationship most of us have with it has undoubtably caused children in other places to have birth defects, eh? Yet, the only real answer is there is no price, so there is no debate. Still, as part of this planet, at this time, you/me/we are all engaged in this debate...

peace

Anonymous said...

Yep, "pro bono" is a very slippery term, as you will see how slippery the supposed pro bono attorneys will be. Anyone who believes that pro bono also includes court costs, research fees, staff costs, etc. are blowing smoke (such as pakalolo, which as you may know, is a GMO-ed product--if you don't believe, try googling: "colchicine and marijuana") up our okoles.

Anyone who believed then, or now, that this will not cost the county anything to defend is either naive, ignorant, or insane.

What's so crazy about this whole GMO issue is that the supposed liberal, progressive left is acting out of the playbook of Fox News and the wacko right, who do not believe in science, i.e; global warming. This was the link Joan previously cited, which exposes this contradiction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?pagewanted=1&smid=tw-share

Here is another link, tho not as articulate as Amy Harmon's, pretty much sums it up:

http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2014/01/12/amy-harmon-gmo-dupe-great-journalist/

Anonymous said...

I am very happy that the free Lawyers Earth Justice and Teri Tico have stepped up. I hope the County picks them. They are known to get all the world news coverage they can and they use positive energy. we need the world to get involved, we need the tourists to get involved, there are too many tourists anyway, but if they boycott Kauai because of all of bad cancer, massive birth defects and bad health maybe the Government can step in and really do somehting about the GMOs and poisoning of the land, water and aina.

Anonymous said...

This just in: Hooser is an a$$hole.

Anonymous said...

3:42, You need to renew your prescriptions ASAP.

Anonymous said...

who are the attorneys who drafted the bill?

Anonymous said...

9:44 am

his wife works for united, more than likely he flys standby or a reduced fare.

Anonymous said...

9:36 pm
Achitoff and Kimbrell wrote it

Anonymous said...

Smoke screen! These lawsuits are to take away focus on the real problems with GE....toxic environment.

The "who-ha" about Gary and Joann and all the shinanigans..is just politics as usual.

These corporations cause harm in the world, so much so their own countries have banned much of what they are spraying here.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive/EU_court_bans_Syngentas_paraquat_weedkiller.html?cid=6000056

http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-syngenta-poisons-people-and.html

Its not about lawyers....its about toxic conditions on the island.
Got Health?

Dr Shibai

Anonymous said...

http://www.atrazinesettlement.com/

Syngental settled out of court for 105 million dollars for contaminating drinking water with the birth defect causing chemical: Atrazine


Zero Seven

Anonymous said...

. . . where the Waimea River meets the sea . . .

Anonymous said...

Earlier, it was revealed that Hooser is an a$$hole. Further investigations have revealed that it's his complete focus on his career at the expense of the voters he claims to represent that blinds him from common sense, common decency or doing what's best for the common good. When asked about his status as an a$$hole, Hooser stated that GMO corn consumption as a kid is the likely culprit. "Kauai needs an a$$hole like me", Hooser said. "Whatever it takes to get elected to a higher office is justified. Period."

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately you can't separate politics and lawyers from a law passed by politicians.

Anonymous said...

Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura expressed concerns that the Council had gone too far afield in directing a joint fact-finding group to examine and report on findings regarding “economic impacts, food sustainability and environmental justice.”

These guys will bleed the County Finances.

All that we asked for was a chemical intrusion impact statement!

If these environmental activist don't create a controversy. They all will be unemployed.

Anonymous said...

"On Friday, Schey said he hadn’t had a chance to thoroughly read through the county’s proposal, but that his preliminary understanding of it raised questions and concerns. Those concerns include the county’s expectation that the pro-bono lawyers would finance the out-of-pocket costs of litigation, he said."

The County's expectation that the pro-bono lawyers would cover the defense? That's what these publicity hungry lawyers promised. Now they are pulling back? Such bull shit.

Anonymous said...

you can ask the county how gary flies if it's on the county's dime or his wifes. he recently stated at the council meeting that he's too busy flying to the state legislature to be involved in NACO and that his focus is the state legislature.

why is his focus the state leg? shouldn't be on issues about kauai FIRST? like the kilauea gym, west side sports complex, etc.

if he wanted to be involved with state leg, he should've stayed in oahu!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

There will be Pro Bonos and the County will end up paying court costs, copy/transmission fees, investigation fees etc and all damages. Unless the County rescinds/modifies the law and negotiates directly with the Big Ag this will take years and plenny dough.
By the time this lawsuit gets finished Tim will have gotten his 1 million from his lawsuit with the county, Gary will retire with his 100K per year (State/County pension plus benefits), he will go back to being a realtor/developer, Joann will be gone, Jay will be gone and Mason will continue in a his "act like you smaht" ways.
oops, but then a whole new pack of eager beavers will appear....Dylan Hooser (already making public appearance), Fern, Andrea, and others of the I love the land more than the people ilk.....


Anonymous said...

What attorney/s drafted the bill?

Anonymous said...

2:14 Preach! so true.

those on council now will milk the county and the people of kauai and walk away when their terms expire.

fern, dylan, and andrea...the haole crusade will then try to run the county...sorry, i'm not for hippie nation to rule beautiful kauai.

especially when they do care more about what "they.the haole" want instead of what is "legally" right. no one is above the law. no matter what college degree you have, how much money your family has (yes you dylan and andrea).

Anonymous said...

5:40, The drafters were probably from Hubris & Dummkopf, LLP assisted by some of our very own councilmembers. Abuse of power is never pretty. But not to worry- all will emerge in court which may explain why things are curiously silent on that front. The case may be made on the lengthy recordings of the interminable proceedings of the Kauai County Star Chamber.