Published: December 05, 2008 11:52 pm            

TRIBUNE-STAR EDITORIAL: Juggling act not what city needs from its attorney

TERRE HAUTE — The attempt to wear too many hats carries a risk: Sometimes, one hat can slip forward and obscure your otherwise clear vision.

That appears to have happened to Terre Haute City Attorney Chou-Il Lee.

Like his law firm associate, Terry Modesitt, who serves as Vigo County prosecutor, Lee has chosen to continue his private practice despite the heavy demands of his public job. We have criticized this juggling act before with regard to Modesitt. Not only is workload a concern, but the dual set of duties creates too many opportunities for conflicts of interest.

Lee’s role in Terre Haute’s contested mayoral election of 2007 is a textbook example of this kind of conflict. In the midst of an unprecedented legal mess that still isn’t resolved, he is functioning as the city’s top lawyer as well as a personal attorney for Mayor Duke Bennett.

Last month, after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Bennett was ineligible to have run for mayor because of Indiana’s version of the Hatch Act, it came to light that Lee had received that same opinion from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel — nearly nine months earlier.

(The Hatch Act prohibits partisan political candidacy for people whose employment includes direct involvement with federal funds, as Bennett’s did as director of operations for Hamilton Center. The Office of Special Counsel is the federal agency responsible for prosecuting Hatch Act cases.)

With Bennett’s knowledge, Lee chose not to share the OSC findings with the public. This seems odd given that Lee insists his primary reason for requesting a “confidential” opinion from the OSC was to determine whether Terre Haute was in jeopardy of losing federal funding because of Bennett’s eligibility status.

Here is what’s the matter with that claim:

Lee’s query to the OSC came from his private law office in Modesitt’s firm, not from the City Attorney’s Office. The OSC’s answer, mailed and faxed, went to the same private practice address.

Lee told the Tribune-Star he was acting as city attorney, but used his private office because he was so new in the city job he did not want to appear to be conducting private practice business on the city’s dime. See what we mean about impaired vision?

Dated March 7, 2008, the OSC letter from Erica Hamrick refers to “your client, Mr. Duke Bennett.” Nowhere in the letter does Hamrick address Lee as city attorney or mention funding to Terre Haute. In fact, she says, “Specifically, you ask whether [Bennett] was covered by the Hatch Act at the time of his candidacy in the 2007 partisan election for Mayor of the City of Terre Haute.”

As Vigo County Superior Court Judge David Bolk had ruled a few months before, the OSC said, yes, indeed, we find that Bennett was in violation of the Little Hatch Act.

Most of us learned this stunning news only late last month when local TV reporters unearthed the OSC letter. Lee’s explanation for the absence of any wording about jeopardized funding was that he had asked Hamrick in a subsequent January e-mail “would there be any ramifications at this late date” if Bennett were deemed ineligible for office.

Generic “ramifications” are a far cry from, “Is the City of Terre Haute’s federal funding in danger?” Nothing approaching the latter was in the e-mail Lee showed the Tribune-Star.

The city attorney’s job is to protect the interests of Terre Haute and its taxpayers. A private attorney’s job is to protect his client. When those two tasks appear to conflict — and they most surely do in this prolonged case — citizens have every right to be alarmed.

On the opening page of the Indiana Appellate Court ruling, four attorneys for appellee Bennett are listed; Chou-Il Lee’s name is second. (Modesitt’s is first.) Lee can be as well-meaning as the day is long on the Summer Solstice, but there is no way he can make such a blatantly incompatible set of duties seem acceptable — not for Bennett and him or for any mayor and city attorney of the future.

Just last month, Lee volunteered to take a $7,687 pay cut to help his boss (and client) cobble together a 2009 city budget. Bennett lauded the decision and said it was based on the workload Lee was assuming as city attorney.

Noble as this fiscal sacrifice may be, we would much prefer that Lee maintain the current salary and put in the commensurate hours, affirming that the city’s top legal office deserves a full-time chief.

Even more crucial than the workload, though, is the hat problem. For the good of the city, and his own credibility, Lee needs to pick one, now, and wear it exclusively.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.