Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners reassign county counsel in Fagan litigation after courtroom exchange

LaPorte County Board of Commissioners · August 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following a contentious hearing and questions about outside counsel’s handling of the Fagan case, the LaPorte County Board of Commissioners voted to have county attorney Guy DiMartino resume representation and remove outside counsel Shaw Freeman; an executive session was scheduled for further briefing.

The LaPorte County Board of Commissioners voted on Aug. 6 to have county attorney Guy DiMartino resume representation in the matter captioned Fagan v. Board of Commissioners and to remove outside counsel Shaw Freeman from the case.

Commissioners discussed a public hearing the day before and concerns that outside counsel had not assimilated the case history and that comments at the hearing prompted judicial admonishment. One commissioner said bringing a second attorney up to speed would waste taxpayer money and argued the county attorney was already familiar with the matter.

"I would like to make a motion to direct you to resume your representation of the county in the matter of ..." a commissioner said during the discussion. The motion was seconded and, after debate about scheduling a closed executive session to fully brief commissioners, the board voted; the meeting record shows the motion carried with a majority.

The board scheduled an executive session to brief commissioners and to allow both attorneys — DiMartino and Friedman — to be present so the commission could be fully informed before additional filings; the county attorney agreed to defer further pleadings until after that meeting to avoid procedural conflicts with the court's calendar.

The board did not discuss confidential executive-session material in public and limited the public remarks to matters already in the record. No further litigation strategy was disclosed at the meeting.