I have questioned for a long time why we have so many attorneys working for the city if we are consistently hiring outside counsel.
Last night at the city council meeting, Bond Counsel representative Doug Hajek explained to the city council that the city had to hire an outside firm because they specialize in bonding. While I understand this, what I don’t understand is why do we even have city attorneys?
Maybe we should just have a couple of paralegals and a purchasing agent (who will hire the outside counsel).
I do however think, the city council needs their own attorney to advise them on legislation. I have suggested in past, as we had with City Clerk, Debra Owen, we have a city clerk with a law license so we could kill two birds with one stone?
Another reason I take issue with outside counsel, is because the city has a habit of putting most major law firms in town on retainer, which makes it extremely difficult for an average citizen to hire an attorney when they have problems concerning the city. A lot of the attorneys that are willing to take your case are retiring, and it will be virtually impossible for you to find a local attorney.
I think the city attorney’s office should have attorneys that are qualified to handle bonds, complicated development contracts, RFPs etc. Like I said above, if our attorney’s office can’t handle, which seems to me, as normal ‘city legal stuff’, maybe we should just eliminate the positions. Anybody can hire an attorney, that doesn’t take a law degree.