Dover council interviews city solicitor candidates; no appointment made

DOVER — The Dover City Council on Tuesday held a special meeting to interview candidates for the city solicitor role, hearing presentations from a solo practitioner and a multi‑attorney firm; council members did not make an appointment.

The interviews focused on three central questions: how often each candidate could attend council and committee meetings, what staffing or deputy coverage they could provide, and whether the firm or lawyer had the specific labor‑relations and collective‑bargaining experience the city may need. The candidates emphasized different strengths: the solo attorney said they already handle police matters and land‑use litigation for other towns but would not be available as a full‑time, in‑house solicitor; the firm led by Luke Mehta and proposing Glenn Mendelas as deputy argued its multi‑lawyer structure would provide broader coverage and specialist back‑up.

“Right up front, I am not applying to be your solo counsel,” the solo practitioner told the council, saying they run a solo practice and would be unable to cover regular council meetings but could provide police and litigation work and other on‑call services. The candidate said they represent Georgetown and other municipalities and described handling “about 20 some matters” tied to a period of heavy litigation there; the candidate also said they generally do not charge for routine travel time.

Representatives from the multi‑attorney firm — who introduced Luke Mehta as the proposed city solicitor and Glenn Mendelas as proposed deputy — described a larger practice with multiple offices and a pool of lawyers to draw on for specialized work. “We are a full service law firm that is really uniquely situated to provide this type of service for a municipality,” one firm representative told the council, describing experience in municipal litigation, planning and zoning, police matters and document drafting. The firm said it has associates who serve as city solicitors elsewhere and named colleagues the firm would call on for police, real estate and labor issues.

Council members pressed both candidates on labor and collective‑bargaining experience. One candidate said that while they had strategic experience in past collective bargaining and had participated at a high level, the “nitty‑gritty” bargaining work is often handled by outside labor specialists and that the city might be better served by bringing in a specialist for detailed negotiations. The firm likewise acknowledged that labor negotiations can require specialized outside counsel and said it would identify and coordinate that expertise when necessary.

Both presentations covered routine service questions the council raised: who would be the daily contact for the city manager and staff; whether deputies or associates would be available if the primary solicitor were unavailable; and how the office would manage cost and workload. The solo practitioner said they would be highly accessible by phone for urgent matters but would limit in‑person meeting attendance; the firm said it would triage routine consultations to lower‑cost associates and reserve partner time for higher‑stakes matters to control client costs.

No motions, votes or formal directions were recorded in the transcript of the meeting. After candidate presentations and questions from council members, the meeting moved on and the council adjourned.

Council members who asked questions during the interview included Councilman Neal, Councilwoman Barr, Councilman Rochelle and Councilman Lew. Candidates repeatedly highlighted police litigation, land‑use work and experience drafting ordinances as core municipal services they could perform for Dover.

The council did not announce a timeline for a final selection during the recorded portion of this meeting. Future council meetings or a formal hiring process may set dates for further interviews, background checks or a vote.