Bar clears Churuti in Smith deal

A months-long inquiry finds nothing wrong with actions that drew the wrath of a Pinellas grand jury.

By WILL VAN SANT, Times Staff Writer
Published January 12, 2008

ADVERTISEMENT [Joseph Garnett, Jr. | Times] Jim Smith sold his lot to Pinellas County for nearly four times its tax-appraised value.

An investigative committee of the Florida Bar has cleared former Pinellas County Attorney Susan Churuti of any wrongdoing in the Jim Smith land deal.

The decision of the six-member committee was unanimous and brings to a close a months-long inquiry launched in response to media coverage questioning Churuti's role in the scandal.

The County Commission unanimously fired Churuti, the county attorney for two decades, on Sept. 4. A week earlier, a scathing grand jury report was released that was critical of Churuti and other key players.

Unlike the grand jurors, the Bar found nothing suspect in Churuti's behavior, saying she took "no action which was not reasonably calculated to benefit the county."

Churuti declined to comment.

Although County Commissioner Susan Latvala voted to oust Churuti, she did so only after repeated attempts to convince her colleagues that the veteran attorney should stay. When it became clear her efforts would fail, Latvala said, she voted as she did to preserve the unity of the commission.

"I'm very happy for her," Latvala said. "She was the queen of county attorneys. She was the best of the best, and I had great confidence in her."

A key question for the Bar was whether Churuti represented both Smith, the county's elected property appraiser, and the county before commissioners voted to buy Smith's vacant Tarpon Woods parcel on June 5.

The controversial transaction was aimed at resolving Smith's complaint that work crews damaged the property and violated his land rights.

Such dual representation would be a clear conflict of interest.

Grand jurors said that while Churuti gave Smith no actual "legal" representation, her actions created a clear perception to the contrary.

To support its findings, the grand jury pointed to Churuti's frequent urging of then-County Administrator Steve Spratt to resolve Smith's complaint.

The grand jury also faulted Churuti for having Smith and then-County Commission Chairman Ronnie Duncan sign conflict-of-interest waivers without informing Spratt or any other members of the commission.

Having the waivers signed "is both perplexing and misleading," the grand jury found, "in that it implies Churuti could and would represent Smith in his claim against the county."

For the Bar, the question of whether Churuti represented Smith was strictly legal. The test in Florida, based on court precedents, is whether the alleged client has a "reasonable subjective belief" that he or she is being represented by the attorney in question.

Smith, who will not run for a fifth term, has always maintained he never considered Churuti his lawyer.

The Bar committee also found Churuti's use of the waivers appropriate. They were meant to signal that she would withdraw from the matter if Smith filed a lawsuit against the county, the Bar concluded.

The Bar also found nothing wrong with Churuti's decision not to inform the full commission about the waivers. Having the commission chairman sign such waivers without any further disclosure was consistent with both Churuti's past practice and that of former county attorneys, the Bar said.

County Commissioner Ken Welch vigorously questioned Churuti the night she was fired and said the Bar's findings didn't change his mind. Because it involved an elected official, the Smith deal required a unique degree of transparency, Welch said.

"It's more than just the legal technicalities," Welch said. "It's a matter of trust. The relationship has been inalterably damaged, despite the Bar association's findings."

Will Van Sant can be reached at vansant@sptimes.com or 727-445-4166

[Last modified January 11, 2008, 23:28:46]