Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve $12,090.25 legal invoice amid recusal and debate
Summary
After an extended legal and procedural debate, the court voted to pay invoice 701 to the Law Office of Benjamin Garcia for $12,090.25 from contingency funds while court counsel advised waiting for final judicial rulings; Commissioner Corley recused from the vote and the motion passed 3'1.
The Lubbock County Commissioners Court voted Jan. 27 to pay invoice 701 from the law office of Benjamin Garcia, in the amount of $12,090.25, amid a contentious discussion over whether payment is premature while related litigation remains pending.
County legal counsel advised caution, saying the payment could be premature while appellate and supreme-court issues remain unresolved. "We await rulings from either the appellate court, supreme court... or a resolution from the case to be heard before visiting judge Pirtle presently scheduled for April of this year," counsel said. Counsel explained statutory constraints on paying legal bills tied to election and removal disputes and recommended waiting for a final determination.
Commissioner Corley, the subject of the underlying quo warranto litigation, argued the court should pay the invoice from contingency funds and indicated he had used private counsel to pursue restoration of his seat. Commissioner Corley recused himself from the vote as required by ethics rules; Judge Parrish stated he would vote no based on the district attorney's office guidance that payment was premature. After a roll-call, the clerk announced the result as three ayes and one nay, with Commissioner Corley present but not voting; the motion carried.
The court asked county staff to follow up on outstanding questions including whether a GoFundMe for legal defense had collected funds and the status of potential bond claims to reimburse county costs in the future. County counsel noted the county may later seek reimbursement from bonds or prevailing-party fee awards, depending on how the litigation is resolved.
