Executive & Finance Committee awards corporate counsel contract to Russell Law Office Group

The Richland County Executive & Finance Committee voted to award a three‑year corporate counsel contract to Russell Law Office Group, starting Jan. 1, after presentations from competing firms and a closed‑session review of proposals.

Russell Law representatives Lane Carver and Sam Goli introduced their firm, saying they would dedicate a multi‑attorney team to the county and establish a triage process so department heads could submit legal questions for timely response. “We’ve got 14 attorneys on staff at present,” Carver said during the presentation, and Russell Law indicated plans to open an office in Richland Center and station an attorney locally.

Public comment and committee discussion focused on conflicts and procurement. A public commenter, Elaine, said the matter attorney Windle was handling involving Pine Valley has been scheduled for trial and warned that retaining Windle could create a conflict (public comment). During the committee discussion attorney Windle acknowledged that when a conflict arises he has stepped back in the past and that occasional outside counsel would be required: “you’d have to step back,” he said, adding that representation of both municipal and county clients carries risk but can also have benefits for local knowledge and responsiveness.

Committee members also debated contract length. Some members proposed offering a one‑year contract with the option to extend, while others said the RFP advertised a three‑year term and firms responded on that basis. The committee ultimately made a motion to award the contract to Russell Law Office Group; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Kramer and adopted in a roll‑call vote recorded in committee (six yes, two no).

The committee cited deliberations and negotiations during a closed session held under Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1)(e), which permits private deliberation about purchasing and negotiating public contracts. The committee’s action will be forwarded to the full county board as part of the committee’s report and implementation steps will be handled by county administration.

The committee also discussed procurement procedure: staff reported two other firms submitted proposals by email rather than the sealed‑envelope method specified in the RFP materials; county counsel advised the committee the county could waive the sealed‑envelope requirement where no ordinance specifically required sealed delivery.

Next steps: the committee will forward the contract recommendation to the full county board and staff will prepare the contract documentation to implement the Jan. 1 start date.