Commission tables decision to hire U.S. Supreme Court‑barred counsel for pro se suit against county

The Board of County Commissioners voted to table consideration of retaining outside counsel admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court to respond to a pro se filing naming the county. The motion to table was approved and the item was scheduled for reconsideration at the board’s next meeting.

County staff explained the petition stems from a litigant who is seeking monetary relief from the county related to alleged wrongdoing by an assistant state attorney. Staff and the county attorney said the county was named because the petitioner mistakenly believed the prosecutor was a county employee. The county sought counsel who can practice before the U.S. Supreme Court; staff recommended a specific attorney affiliated with a large law firm and supplied a discounted hourly rate of $780 for Supreme Court practice.

Why it matters: Commissioners raised concerns about cost and asked staff to gather at least two additional candidates and rate comparisons. Commissioner Sabatini and others said they were uncomfortable committing to a lawyer whose rates could exceed $800 per hour without seeing competitive options. County staff said the attorney does not expect the Supreme Court to take the petition but wanted to retain counsel who could file a timely response if necessary.

Outcome: The board voted to table the item and asked staff to return with more candidate names, hourly rate comparisons and background information by the next meeting (the board referenced a return on Oct. 14). The motion to table passed on a majority voice vote recorded by the chair.

Ending: County leaders said they want to minimize expense while securing counsel able to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court if required; staff will return with additional options and cost comparisons.