Bunnell County supervisors find potential conflict in county attorney’s office, authorize outside counsel

BUNNELL COUNTY, April 4, 2025 — The Bunnell County Board of Supervisors unanimously recessed a special meeting into executive session and later voted that a potential conflict of interest exists involving the county attorney’s office and employment matters, then authorized the county manager to retain outside counsel to determine whether the county attorney may properly represent the county in those matters.

The board began a special meeting with a motion to recess into executive session; Vice Chairman McClure moved to recess and convene executive session, and the motion carried on a voice vote. After returning from the closed session, the board discussed whether to waive privilege and make details public. Legal counsel advised against waiving privileged information at this time, saying the privilege could be waived later if appropriate.

"I would not, at this time, waive that information," said Miss Lacrone, the board's legal counsel, after noting the executive-session discussion contained information not yet appropriate for public release.

The board then considered a motion that it believes there is a potential conflict of interest involving the County Attorney’s Office with respect to employment matters. Vice Chairman McClure moved the motion and Supervisor Goodman seconded it; members signified "aye" and the motion carried.

McClure read a legal definition referenced to prior authority when framing the issue: "A conflict of interest exists if 1, the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client or 2, there is a significant risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, the former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer," which he identified as coming from the Romley v. Dalton decision and Ethics Rule 1.7(a).

Following that vote the board considered two options for how to proceed and approved option B: authorizing the county manager to retain outside counsel for a one-time determination of whether the county attorney has a conflict that would preclude representing the county in employment matters related to the county attorney's office. The motion to retain outside counsel was moved by Vice Chairman McClure and seconded by Supervisor Goodman. The motion passed on a voice vote with one recorded "nay." Supervisor Surdy cast the nay; other members signified aye.

Board members emphasized the limited scope of the authorization. "This would be a 1-off legal advice from outside counsel. This would not be retaining any outside counsel to take away the duties of what our attorneys do for us," Miss Lacrone said. Another supervisor clarified the authorization was intended to address particular employment matters rather than a wholesale removal of the county attorney.

The meeting concluded after the votes. The board did not waive privilege at that time and did not release details disclosed during the executive session; counsel said waiver could be considered later if further discovery or need arises.

Votes at a glance: the board recessed into executive session (motion carried, voice vote); the board voted that a potential conflict of interest exists regarding the County Attorney’s Office and employment matters (motion carried, voice vote); and the board authorized the county manager to retain outside counsel to determine whether the county attorney has a disqualifying conflict in those employment matters (motion carried on a voice vote with one recorded "nay" by Supervisor Surdy).