Dover — The Dover City Council on June (date not specified) paused its selection of a new city solicitor and voted to seek outside review of potential conflicts of interest, after council members raised questions about pending litigation and familial ties involving one candidate.

Council members voted to ask the state Public Integrity Commission and/or the Delaware Bar Association to review a perceived or potential conflict of interest, and to ask the city manager to obtain written conflict plans from each applicant. The motions were approved by voice vote.

The issue arose during a special virtual meeting called to order at about 5:15. Several council members said only two candidates applied to replace the outgoing solicitor and that each presented different risks: one candidate is a solo practitioner, which some members said could increase outside counsel costs, and the other practices with a firm that council members said has been on the opposing side in litigation involving Drapers Farm, a party currently connected to litigation against the city.

"No matter which law firm you choose in this state, there's the potential that there can be a conflict of interest," said Dr. Sudler (Councilmember), who led several council members in urging formal review. "I would recommend that maybe we send our concerns to [the Public Integrity Commission] and then ask them to weigh in since they're the ones who train us."

Councilman Anderson said the council should directly require the candidates to explain, in writing, how they would handle existing clients that have suits against the city. "We can just have the city manager ask both parties, what is your plan? Make them detail it, it's part of our consideration," Anderson said, arguing that written responses would help the council evaluate whether a candidate could ethically serve as city solicitor while their firm maintained other clients.

Other council members raised budget and code concerns. One council member noted the city spent about $300,000 this year on outside legal services and warned that hiring a solo practitioner might increase contracting out to outside lawyers. Another member pointed out Dover's municipal code includes a provision (referenced in the meeting as "section 54") describing the city solicitor's duties and allowing the solicitor to act either "personally or by such assistance as they may designate," a passage several members cited while discussing whether the solicitor may delegate work to outside counsel.

Several council members also questioned whether a candidate's law firm currently represents Drapers Farm in litigation against the city and whether attorneys at that firm are related to parties in that litigation; council members asked the city manager to confirm whether suits are still pending. The city manager reported that, from his view, at least some matters remain pending but did not provide a full litigation inventory during the meeting.

With those outstanding questions, the council approved a motion to request a review by the Public Integrity Commission and/or the Delaware Bar Association and to obtain written conflict-management plans from each applicant before moving forward. The council also agreed to recess the special meeting to the call of the council president.

The motions do not change the council's stated options: to proceed with selecting one of the two applicants, to hire an in-house solicitor if that path becomes viable, or to continue using outside counsel while the city transitions. Council members said they prefer answers in writing from applicants and an outside opinion on whether any perceived conflicts would violate ethical rules or create an appearance problem.

Next steps identified by council members include: (1) the city manager will request written conflict-management plans or disclosures from the two applicants; (2) the council will submit questions to the Public Integrity Commission and/or the Delaware Bar Association for comment; and (3) the council will reconvene at the call of the president once those responses are received. No final hire or contract was approved at the meeting.