New Haven Independent

Posted by: END The WASTE | May 20, 2009 1:14 PM

An investigation is needed to determine why public funds paid over $200,000 for legal fees. Should the attorneys representing the housing authority have attempted to settle the matter prior to 8 years of litigation? What is their insentive to settle the matter earlier? How are the attorneys selected, hired, and at what hourly rate, fees for copies, couriers?

Posted by: Bob Solomon | May 20, 2009 5:06 PM

End The Waste - I think you make a lot of assumptions, but settling law suits with public money is an important question. First, I agree with your basic premise, which is that public entities do not spend enough effort to settle cases when the claim is first made, as opposed to when the case is ready for trial. Having sued the Housing Authority on behlaf of plaintiffs, I came to the ED job with the mindset that we should settle cases quicker and more easily. It's not as easy as it sounds. Sometimes the initial demand is outrageous, sometimes injuries are not fully determined, sometimes plaintiffs' lawyers file suits to meet the statute of limitations, but have not fully developed the case. Then, there is the question of insurance coverage. In fact, Ward was not settled with $155,000 in public funds, but $50,000 in public funds and $105,000 in insurance proceeeds. That's not an excuse, since $50,000 is still a lot of public money. As it happens, Ward was almost impossible to settle before litigation, because the plaintiff did not file required notice with the Housing Authority. We tried to win on that ground alone, but did not. I thought (and still think) that we have a good appeal, but that means going to trial and risking a huge judgment. Having a good appeal in the face of a judgment is not such a great thing. Ultimately, the attorneys advised that we settle. As a litigator, having been involved in the great amount of work on this case, I agreed. More important, since it was paying the bulk of the settlement, the insurer agreed. Anyone connected to Houisng Authority litigation knows that I hate paying, but the nature of the business in that we will be sued. The goal is to pay the minimum necessary, but to be willing to enter onto a fair settlement when someone is injured and we may have liability. In this case, I believe that the settlement was fair to all parties. I also believe that Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, our attorneys, did a terrific job, especially since their client was occasionally annoying and demanding.

Posted by: END The WASTE | May 21, 2009 9:28 AM

Thank you for the useful information. It's good to know that you are satisfied with the work done by the attorneys. I believe municipalities are often charged reduced rates by its counsel. What is the hourly rate, fees and expenses regarding this litigation? Thank you.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | May 21, 2009 11:42 AM

All attorney's fees and costs were paid by insurance.

Posted by: anonbeciamfraid | May 21, 2009 12:58 PM

That's just not true-Bob needs to take a second look at their insurance coverage contract. Rolan Young, HANH's outside general counsel, has a contract that grosses in the annual $700,000 range. Lisa Egan-Grosso's-outside labor counsel grosses about $400,000 range-(ex-corp counsel)(for a union contract that was not actually signed until the terms of it expired). The outside summary process counsel usually grosses about $270,000 when they use it. HANH staff in many instances actually does the work and legal counsel is actually just reviewing it. There is no incentive whatsoever to reduce legal fees. Even in the worst of economic times outside counsel fees are the one area that HANH will not cut back on because as Jimmy Miller once described her-...HANH will cut at basis building supplies before it will cut legal fees. HANH staff knows better than to complain. It's so sad that an agency which as the ability to actually address the needs of the poorest of New Haven's population is just a money pot for the mayor's friends.

Posted by: FOI ? | May 21, 2009 2:48 PM

Should we assume that the attorney fees are not at a reduced rate, since all legal fees and costs were "paid by insurance"? Should we assume there isn't an incentive to avoid unnecessary legal work or litigation since legal fees and costs aren't paid by "public funds". Prudent spending, ethical services, and public oversight are needed.

Posted by: FOI ? | May 22, 2009 9:23 AM

I see that Attorney Young's firm is representing the Housing Authority in a foreclosure matter. The Plaintiff in the suit is The City of New Haven! NNH-CV-09-5027369-S

Posted by: Bob Solomon | May 22, 2009 3:20 PM

Since we were writing about the settlements, I meant that the attorney's fees for those cases were paid by insurance. HANH pays attorneys fees for a wide range of legal services, including evictions, labor issues, redevelopment, contracting, and defending law suits. Our costs are too high, in part because society has become too dependent on lawyers, insurance companies too often low-ball offers on serious injuries, and too many of us would rether sue than accept personal responsibility (or, in the alternative, refuse to pay until someone sues). Because HANH is a public agency, procurement and contract compliance have an added cost, for good reasons, but still expensive. Anyone who has attended a few HANH board meeting knows that high legal fees drives me crazy, but the alternative puts important projects at risk. Rolan Young and Lisa Egan are both, in my opinion, extremely fine attorneys. That's pretty important when we are dealing with labor contracts valued a millions of dollars or procurement and redevelopment valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.