[Editor's note: The following is the complete statement of City Attorney Richard P. Lindsey concerning letters written to The Citizen during the past two months. The letters commented on the prospective appointment of the law firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey to another term as city attorneys. The statement was made during the public meeting of the Peachtree City Council Mar. 2. Except for minor corrections for style (paragraphing, capitalization, punctuation, etc.), the statement is an exact copy of that furnished by Lindsey to The Citizen.]

I asked for a few minutes to address you tonight. In the past couple of months, there have been several letters to the editor printed in one local newspaper accusing our firm, and more particularly, Jim Webb, of a conflict of interest caused by our position as City Attorney and Jim's involvement in a new, locally-owned, community bank named The Bank of Georgia.

The accusations of a conflict of interest apparently stem from the fact that Steve Black and Mike Rossetti, two other local businessmen, were also involved in starting this new bank while they were also employees and possibly owners or shareholders of local companies that from time-to-time sue the city over development issues.

Please understand that the bank is not a partnership, but is a corporation. Mr. Webb, Mr. Black, Mr. Rossetti, and nine others organized the bank and sit on its board of directors. It has more than 300 shareholders and I believe most of these shareholders are Peachtree City residents.

When Mr. Webb first agreed to sit on the bank board, we reviewed our state ethical codes to ensure there was no ethical conflict. It is common practice for attorneys in Georgia (and quite probably city attorneys) to sit on bank boards.

After these letters began appearing in the local newspaper, we contacted the State Bar of Georgia in order to obtain an official opinion of whether or not Mr. Webb's position on the bank would present a conflict of interest with our position as City Attorney. We were told that we would have to wait one to two years in order to obtain a written opinion from the State Bar.

So, we again reviewed the ethical rules and conducted legal research. We even contacted the American Bar Association. After all of that, we arrived at the same conclusion – Mr. Webb's status as a shareholder and director of the bank does not, in and of itself, present a conflict of interest. We have even consulted with a journalism and ethics professor who has confirmed that there is no conflict of interest.

As with all clients, we must be ever mindful of potential conflicts which may arise between our clients and which may arise between our clients and our personal interests. Lawyers in the state of Georgia are governed by a set of written Standards of Conduct. The pertinent standard reads as follows: Except with the written consent or written notice to his client after full disclosure a lawyer shall not accept or continue employment if the exercise of his professional judgment on behalf of his client will be or reasonably may be affected by his own financial, business, property or personal interest. Rule 4-102, Standard 30.

Presently, in our opinion, there is absolutely no conflict between Mr. Webb's involvement with the Bank of Georgia and our firm representing the city of Peachtree City.

First, the Bank of Georgia was not open for business when these letters began appearing. Second, the Bank of Georgia had not made any loans to any person or company when they first appeared. Third, the Bank of Georgia has had no issues with - and quite probably has no contact with - the city of Peachtree City. There simply is nothing on which to base an allegation of conflict.

These letters to the editor have also accused our firm of being intertwined with Pathway Communities. Let me state that we have not represented Pathway or PCDC in the entire time we have been attorneys for Peachtree City.

I do not know if we have ever represented any of the many employees or former employees of that company in a personal injury claim, criminal defense claim, or domestic relations action. However, I do not believe that we have represented any of the principals or “major players” of PCDC or Pathways in such capacities.

To my knowledge, none of our present clients has a claim adverse to Peachtree City which would require our firm to either disqualify itself from representing both parties or would require our firm to receive a written consent from such parties. Also, to my knowledge, none of the attorneys at Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey, LLC, has a financial interest which would be adverse to the city of Peachtree City.

If we ever have a situation which presents a conflict of interest with the city of Peachtree City, believe me, we will immediately notify the Council and leave it to Council to determine the direction to take as far as our representation of the city.

Our firm is vigilant in protecting itself and our clients from conflicts of interest. We use a computer program to assist us. Also, our attorneys routinely discuss new matters which are brought into the firm so that we can avoid the possibility of such conflicts.

Now, I would like to directly address the letters and the journalistic style of a particular local paper. I believe, in general, that letters to the editor began appearing in the local paper on a regular basis sometime during the last few years. These letters have become increasingly outrageous. They frequently contain misinformation and statements which are blatantly inaccurate.

It seems that the same small group of authors sends most of these letters. On frequent occasions, an author has more than one letter per week printed in the newspaper. These letters appear so frequently that they are more like editorials, condoned and encouraged by the paper, than more traditional “letters to the editor.”

I have never seen a newspaper engage in this type of conduct. These letters are only rarely complimentary and invariably find something negative to discuss about our city and county government and our fine community. It is almost impossible to defend oneself against these constant allegations because the paper has the power of the press and can pick and choose what it elects to print.

Thus far, council and our office have chosen to ignore them, feeling that the vast majority of our citizens know the real truth. However, the accusations contained in these most recent letters have continued to escalate and have now exceeded the bounds of fair comment.

As the City Attorneys, we expect to receive some heat from time to time over legal opinions that we give to the city. Such heat goes with the territory. As we all know, we simply tell you what we believe are the legal ramifications of your decisions and give you recommendations. We do not decide the course of action you take — you do.

We are not infallible and perhaps there have been times when our advice could have been second-guessed, but we have never given you advice that we believed to be wrong when we gave it. We feel that we have served this city with integrity and honor during our eight years and hope you feel we have done an excellent job.

The recent letters, however, have not criticized our opinions. These letters have attacked our ethics, have made claims that we have not properly represented the city, have made claims that we maintained improper and unethical relationships which have negatively affected our clients (and, in particular, the city), and have made claims that we improperly profited from our representation of the city. We can no longer stand by while the ethics of our firm and of its attorneys are attacked, especially when done so in the news media. There is absolutely no basis for these attacks and such attacks are clearly libelous.

To my knowledge, no lawyer in our firm has ever breached his or her ethical obligation to any of our clients by allowing his or her personal interests to interfere with our duty to properly represent our clients or ever placed his or her personal interests above the interests of our clients. Ever.

Additionally, we have not reaped some huge financial reward in representing the City. Rather, we have represented the City at hourly rates which are far below our standard hourly rates. We have also sent two, and sometimes three, lawyers to meetings and yet only charged for one lawyer. When training lawyers, we never make a charge to the city for such training. For the past two years, our firm's annual billings to the City have been just over $100,000. For both years, this represented less than one-thirtieth (1/30th) of the total income of our firm.

In addition, in both years, we donated to the city, through the Development Authority, $25,000 each year to sponsor the Summer Concert Series. We view the sponsorship as an act of good will and as a means of supporting our community. The implication that we have “gotten rich” off of the city is simply false and ludicrous.

We believe that the intent of these letters to the editor and the newspaper's decision to publish them was designed solely to poison the community's feeling toward Mr. Webb and our firm regarding our representation of the city. It is also our belief that the misleading headlines attached to these letters were added by the local newspaper.

Several days ago, my law partner wrote to the author of most of these letters and to the newspaper which printed these letters alerting them that these statements were defamatory. He demanded a retraction. Even after being given this opportunity to recant, no retraction or apology was made or printed.

In fact, in an almost-unbelievable show of arrogance, the newspaper printed our letters as if there was something improper in our demanding a retraction, and then the paper published additional letters from this same small group of authors that again implied some wrongdoing. This has got to stop!

So our firm is left with a difficult decision. We can either withdraw our application to remain as City Attorney and let this kind of conduct go unchecked, or we can stand up and fight. The attorneys in our firm are not accustomed to standing by and allowing injustice to prevail.

Someone has to bring a halt to this type of inappropriate journalism and the slurring of people with excellent reputations. We will not withdraw our application and cannot stand idly by while our firm and lawyers are libeled by these “Letters to the Editor,” and, more importantly, the newspaper's willingness to print these untruths.

Not one of these letter writers or the newspaper has asked Mr. Webb or me to comment on these allegations. If someone was interested in the truth, wouldn't they ask us about it? So, we choose to stand and fight and look forward to the opportunity of righting these wrongs in a court of law. There is nothing more important to a lawyer and a law firm than their reputation; we will defend the reputation of our firm and the lawyers who work there.

Therefore, and with some regret, I am announcing to Council and to the public, that earlier today we filed suit in Fayette County Superior Court on behalf of Jim Webb and the law firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey against Mr. Stephen Brown, Fayette Publishing Inc., the publisher of The Citizen Newspaper and The Peachtree City Citizen Review, and its publisher, Mr. Calvin Beverly, personally, for libel.

This litigation is likely to be both lengthy and expensive; however, we are prepared to fight and fight we will.

Even though there clearly is no conflict of interest, so there can be absolutely no question about the appropriateness of our conduct while we litigate these baseless allegations, during the pendency of this suit, Mr. Webb will not represent the city.

As all of you know, Mr. Ott and I have done the bulk of the city's work for the last few years. Mr. Webb has essentially supervised the city's litigation and consulted with us on strategy issues. He will voluntarily discontinue all such activity until these wrongs are righted.

I consider this a loss to the city in that all of you recognize that Mr. Webb is one of the most respected trial lawyers in this state and, to the best of my knowledge, is the only lawyer in Fayette County who is certified in trial law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He is also the former state chairman of the General Practice and Trial Section of the Georgia Bar.

Believe me, his credentials are impressive. His counsel on city matters will be missed.

On a personal note, I think that these libelous remarks have done a great disservice not only to Mr. Webb, his family and our law firm, but to the reputation of our town.

Americans believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but these constitutional rights are limited. People cannot just say or write anything. Newspapers cannot just print anything. They have an obligation to tell, write, and print the truth. Newspapers have an additional obligation to print it objectively and accurately. They must balance the right of a free press and the public's need to know with the right of an individual to be protected from libelous remarks which harm his good name and professional reputation.

I hope this dispute can be resolved in a court of law where there are rules that control what can be said rather than this newspaper continuing to bring discredit to our town by reporting about this situation in a one-sided, distorted manner.

As it goes forward there may very well be other parties added to this case before all the truth is known regarding the motivations for this conduct — but our firm will not be trying this case in the newspapers. We will try it in a court of law where honesty and integrity will prevail.

Finally, so that everyone is clear about our intentions and our main purpose in filing this lawsuit, I am stating publicly that our current intention is that any monies which we may receive as a result of this lawsuit will be given to a local charity and not kept by any members of our firm.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page