Lakeside Village counsel withdraws after county warns of conflict-of-interest appearance

Shannon Cannon and Haley Cannon, who said they represent the Board of Lakeside Village, told the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on March 16 that their former attorney resigned because of an apparent conflict of interest.

Assistant County Attorney Jonathan Ehrlich explained to the board that while the county does not yet believe an actual conflict has crystallized, there is an appearance of conflict and a strong potential for conflict to arise because issues have been brought to the board that could put Lakeside Village and Jefferson County on opposite sides. Ehrlich said the attorney’s resignation was advised to avoid any future situation in which the county and the village could be adversaries in litigation or in an investigation related to the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Ehrlich said the resignation was disclosed when counsel was hired and that counsel indicated the potential to withdraw if a conflict developed.

The Cannons told the board they were concerned because, they said, advice given earlier by the attorney enabled village operations to continue after three resignations were submitted; they said that without that advice, critical services such as water operations might have been interrupted. County staff and attorneys present — including Jonathan Ehrlich and other county staff identified in the record as Josh Ney and Wyatt Hoagland — said the decision to advise withdrawal was made to prevent any appearance that the county attorney could not fully represent both parties should interests diverge. The Cannons said the sequence of events caused confusion among residents.

Commissioner Doug Walbridge said that county attorneys had been transparent in advising municipalities that they may need to resign if a conflict arises and that the commissioners were aware that county attorneys represent some external entities and accepted that condition. No formal binding action was taken; the board recessed into an executive session later in the meeting to discuss privileged legal matters and announced no binding action followed.

The minutes note that a request for an investigation under the Kansas Open Meetings Act had been received; the minutes do not say whether that request was filed with the Attorney General’s office or handled internally, and the Cannons asked the county to clarify next steps. The county said it will follow appropriate procedures for any investigation.