Council debate over $45,000 legal invoice ends without formal grievance; city attorney urges caution

Columbus City Council spent more than an hour debating whether to challenge a roughly $45,000 invoice for outside legal services that the city paid after an official acting in their official capacity retained outside counsel. Several councilors described the bill as “excessive” and asked staff to explore remedies; the city attorney advised that case law supports payment and cautioned against using city funds to pursue a grievance.

Why it mattered: Councilors said the invoice’s amount creates a dangerous precedent if left unchecked. Supporters of action argued a public response — including a grievance to the Georgia State Bar or arbitration — is a legitimate avenue to test excessive-fee claims. The city attorney and the city’s legal office argued the fees were authorized under Georgia case law when outside counsel is required because of a conflict and when the official was successful, and warned that a council-funded legal challenge would itself cost taxpayer dollars.

What happened in the meeting: Councilor Glenn Davis moved to seek reconsideration and to pursue a grievance through the state bar; the motion to reconsider received no second. A subsequent motion asking staff to draft a resolution to file a grievance at the state level was seconded but later the seconder withdrew. Council then directed staff to research outside counsel options and cost estimates so the body could consider next steps. The city attorney, Clifton Faye, said the relevant Georgia case law obligates local governments to pay counsel in these circumstances and that the city’s office had reviewed and found the fees reasonable in the marketplace.

Key statements: - Councilor Glenn Davis: “I make a motion that we put a resolution together and we file a grievance with the state bar that we believe those fees are excessive.” (motion did not proceed to a binding vote.) - City Attorney Clifton Faye: “The fees were reasonable with the market. The court has not said the local government body can question the fees. The fees are paid as an expense of government operation according to the court.”

Next steps and administrative directions: Council asked staff to gather cost estimates and availability for outside counsel who could evaluate or, if council chooses, file a grievance or other legal action on behalf of the council (not as individuals). Several councilors asked the clerk and city manager to circulate the underlying invoice to council so members can review the billed hours and rates. Council also discussed non‑court remedies such as filing grievances against individual attorneys with the State Bar — a process some councilors described as available at little direct cost to taxpayers if pursued by individuals rather than the city.

Ending: No formal municipal grievance or litigation was initiated at the meeting. Councilors who pressed for action said they planned to continue seeking outside estimates and to consider a future council vote after additional cost information is available.