Village of Biscayne Park advances John Hearn as top choice for village attorney after presentations and close 3–2 vote

The Village of Biscayne Park commission voted 3–2 on Dec. 8 to advance John Hearn as its preferred candidate for village attorney, with a second firm named as a backup pending negotiation of contract terms.

The vote followed a special meeting in which five law firms and attorneys presented their experience and answered commissioners’ questions about billing, availability and handling conflicts. Mayor Grama opened the meeting by laying out a 15‑minute presentation limit and explaining the commission’s intent to advance either one candidate or a top two, then invited candidates to present.

The outcome matters because the village attorney advises the commission on legal questions ranging from code enforcement to litigation strategy and statutory compliance. Commissioners and candidates repeatedly raised concerns about continuity, independence and the budgetary impact of the attorney contract—topic areas commissioners said affect the village’s ability to respond to changing state law and to manage limited local revenue.

Hearn, who described more than 30 years of municipal practice and two prior interim stints as Biscayne Park’s village attorney, emphasized his firm’s experience drafting ordinances, advising quasi‑judicial boards and preparing transition plans. He told the commission he would make himself available, provide regular communications and, if directed, supply monthly written reports on pending legal matters.

Several commissioners questioned candidates on how they would preserve independence from the village manager and avoid conflicts when officials disagreed. Hearn said his duty would be to the commission and the corporate interests of the village, not to individual officeholders, and said he would flag legal concerns to the full commission if they arose.

The incumbent firm—represented at the meeting by its lead attorney—reviewed its five‑year relationship with the village, the range of services provided since 2021 and its willingness to accept a $125,000 flat annual fee. That proposal and the firm’s prior request for a larger increase prompted the commission to open the search and schedule the presentations.

Vice Mayor (name provided in roll call) and other commissioners objected to advancing a new firm without broader public procedures, saying the incumbent had not been given documented performance concerns or an opportunity earlier in the process to address issues. ‘‘Given that there was no documented performance issues, the current firm agreed to the fee structure, and they bring years of institutional history and continuity,’’ the vice mayor said, arguing the proper approach for a substantive replacement would be an RFP with transparent scoring.

Other commissioners said the presentations were useful to assess market options and to verify the level of service the village could expect at the proposed fee. After commissioners shared their top choices, one commissioner moved to select Hearn as the primary candidate and name a second firm as a backup; the motion passed 3–2. The commission did not immediately terminate the incumbent contract; staff said transition planning and any termination would follow the contract’s required notice period and come back to the commission at its next meeting for formal action.

The commission directed the village manager to meet with the top candidate’s negotiator and to report back on proposed contract language, transition logistics and any required action to trigger the incumbent’s termination provisions.

The special meeting closed with no immediate change to in‑house legal coverage; commissioners said they expected negotiation details and, if a new contract is approved at a future meeting, a transition period for record transfer and continuity of legal services.