City attorney must be versatile, utterly loyal

As Brooksville City Council members interview the five finalists for the job of city attorney tonight, they are fortunate to have qualified lawyers with diverse legal backgrounds. But the person they choose to represent them must, above all, always place the city's collective interests above those of any other client, or even his or her own.

The council is more likely to achieve that goal if it defines the demands of the job, carefully considers the applicants' backgrounds, and then balances both those factors with the specific needs of the city.

Some of the finalists have extensive experience in land-use law. Others have solid credentials in municipal government. Some have deep roots in Brooksville. Others are from outside Hernando County.

Council members should take all that into account as they screen the candidates, but they should not allow any single factor, such as geographic heritage or single-issue expertise, to sway their opinion. It is more important that the council choose a well-rounded person who is dependable, accessible, apolitical and who will make representing the council the top priority of his or her private practice.

This part-time position is one of enormous public trust. It requires a lawyer who is passionate about that calling and who will be accountable for the outcome.

Often, a municipal attorney is the face of city government. The right person for the job will be capable of - and comfortable with - handling diverse interests and myriad responsibilities. The attorney must care for his or her client, the council as an entity, and be able to work well with the city manager. But he or she also must be equally skillful at negotiations and communicating effectively with outside interests.

Once the council has settled on which finalist best meets those high standards, this suggestion might help it gauge the applicant's commitment:

Would the attorney agree to sign a contract that prohibits him or her, upon leaving the employment of the city, from representing any person or business that brings litigation against the city, for two or three years? Further, would the attorney agree, for a similar time frame, not to represent any person or firm that seeks to capitalize on any change in zoning or land-use laws that were made during the time he or she was the city attorney?

An answer in the affirmative might go a long way to ease the concerns of residents who might speculate that an applicant has ulterior motives, or holds the city attorney's job in less regard than other clients.

[Last modified August 28, 2007, 21:04:48]