Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn Heights council votes to seek new outside counsel after closed-door discussion of Bezzi lawsuit
Summary
After a closed session to discuss Wayne County Circuit Court case No. 2,401,653 (Mohammed Bezzi v. City of Dearborn Heights), the Dearborn Heights City Council voted to accept the risk authority—s recommendation while amending the motion to remove the current law firm and direct staff to seek replacement counsel.
The Dearborn Heights City Council voted April 8 to direct city administration to seek replacement outside counsel in connection with a pending lawsuit against the city.
The action followed a closed session held under the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.268(1)(e), to discuss Wayne County Circuit Court case number 2,401,653, Mohammed Bezzi v. City of Dearborn Heights. The council convened the closed session at 5:36 p.m. and returned to open session at 6:06 p.m.
Councilman Hassan Ahmad moved the council into closed session; the roll call shown in the meeting record registered unanimous support from members present. Attendees listed for the closed session included the city council, Mayor Bezzi, Chief of Staff Hernandez, the city—s corporation counsel and Andrea Pike from the law firm identified in the record as Rosati, Schultz, Jopich (as stated in the transcript). The council cited MCL 15.268(1)(e) as authority for the closed session.
After returning to open session, Councilman Robert Constant moved to "concur with the recommendation of the attorneys" provided by the city—s insurer/risk authority. Councilman Hassan Saab proposed and secured an amendment asking that the city remove the current law firm from the case and seek other outside counsel. Saab said he believed there was a conflict because an attorney who had been present in the closed session was observed speaking with a person who might be called as a witness or deposed, and that observation "gives rise to a conflict." A fellow council member, identified in the transcript as Roger, urged the body to seek guidance from the Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA) before concluding an ethical violation had occurred.
The amended motion — to concur with the insurer/risk authority—s recommendation but to remove the current firm and direct administration to look for new attorneys for the case — carried on a voice vote. The meeting record shows the council then resumed regular business and adjourned.
No specific replacement firm was named in the meeting record, and the council did not record a timeline for selecting new counsel. The record indicates the administration will follow up to solicit other attorneys and that the council intends to notify or consult with MMRMA as part of that process.
The record does not include further details about the alleged contact that prompted the conflict concern, the precise scope of the insurer/risk authority—s original recommendation, or any immediate changes to litigation strategy beyond directing the administration to seek other counsel.
