Cheryl Lasseter covered the matter of the contract between Hinds County and attorney Precious Martin in the Motorola lawsuit. Here is the video:
One item must be pointed out. The case settle after the trial began so its my contention the 40% clause applies to the settlement agreement and is what Mr. Martin probably received.
4 comments:
Keep up the good work Kingfish.
It seems like there is an ethical violation with this setup.
Crystal Martin would almost certainly meet the definition of a "Public Servant" under Section 25-4-103(p)(iii) which states "Any individual who receives a salary, per diem or expenses paid in whole or in part out of funds authorized to be expended by the government." or (p)(i) which states "Any elected or appointed official of the government"
It wouldn't seem like the exemption under Section 25-4-103(k)(iv) would apply since the county attorney would certainly exercise at least indirect control over contracts with outside counsel.
Any opinions from people with more legal experience than me?
I have a legal background and I agree.
I just re-read the retention agreement with Precious T. Martin and it says:
"WEREAS, the below listed Law Firms are experienced in the laws of the State of Mississippi and have consented to represent Hinds County, in association with the Hinds County Board Attorney, respecting the Claims and pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof."
Crystal Martin has in the agreement itself direct control over the contract.
It says on Hinds County's website that their board attorney is full-time which would make her an employee. Her duties listed include "supervision of contract attorneys employed by the County."
I think the Attorney General and the Ethics Commission need to look into this.
Post a Comment