Biglaw, Racism

Law Firm Fights Housing Segregation... So Town Leaders Seek To Strong Arm Another Firm Client

Towns try out a new strategy to rid themselves of powerful opposing counsel.

By  
on

Few ideas can muster the bipartisan support that “upholding de facto segregation” can in well-to-do communities.

Republicans and Democrats came together in Westport, Connecticut, to vote to request the school board cut off Shipman & Goodwin, the firm that’s represented the school board for over 30 years, in retaliation for the firm’s work on behalf of developers seeking to build affordable housing in the town. The school board is, of course, an independent entity from the town itself and is free to ignore the request, but the town happens to control the school board’s budget and is giving off every indication that it could sacrifice the town’s own kids if the school board doesn’t join its crusade to keep the community free from….

What’s gotten into the town’s bonnet is the fact that Shipman & Goodwin partner Timothy Hollister is willing to say the next part out loud. In a ProPublica and Connecticut Mirror investigation into housing segregation earlier this year:

“Does anybody say we need to keep blacks and Hispanics out of Westport? No, but they talk about property values, safety and preserving open space — all the things that a town can do to prevent development that would bring up a more economically and racially diverse housing population,” Hollister said. “They don’t use the overt racial terms, but it’s absolutely clear to everybody in the room that’s what they’re talking about.”

Westport flipped out that someone might insinuate that they’re doing what they seem to be actually doing and called the remarks “inflammatory and insulting.” I mean… are they talking about “property values, safety and preserving open space”? Because if they are, this statement isn’t insulting as much as a lesson about well-documented dog whistles. Even if the Board wasn’t seeking segregation as a conscious effort, a statement like this should give them pause to critically reconsider the assumptions behind the rhetoric they’re using.

Shunning that lesson, the two Republicans and one Democrat on the town’s Board of Selectmen wrote the school board demanding they drop S&G as counsel.

“S&G cannot have it both ways,” the town’s two Republican selectmen and their Democratic colleague wrote to the school board, referring to the firm’s work for Summit Development LLC, a developer that is seeking to build a 187-unit apartment complex a half-mile from the local train station. Fifty-seven of those units would be reserved for low-income residents. Town officials said the firm’s “dual representation” constitutes a conflict of interest.

Sponsored

But it’s not a conflict of interest. Indeed, Connecticut ethics authorities have already weighed in that this is not a conflict of interest because it’s not a “dual representation” to represent two completely different clients. What might actually be a conflict of interest is a town official seeking to undermine the school board’s independent judgment and potentially its budget over a land use spat. Boycotts are all well and good, but using government funds to boycott another public interest function is much thornier.

The correct move here was to write a letter back explaining that if this all comes to pass, the firm is prepared to file a suit against the town for tortiously interfering with the firm’s relationship with its existing client. For its part, S&G took a completely different approach:

But, over the past few months, the law firm has sought to make amends with the town. Hollister apologized, and Shipman & Goodwin took the extraordinary step of giving Westport an effective veto over its future affordable housing clients. In a letter to local officials last month, attorney Thomas Mooney, who represents the town school board, said the firm, “out of respect for our relationship,” would never again take on a client challenging a land-use decision without written permission from town leaders. However, for ethical reasons, the firm could not drop its current client that has been trying to build affordable housing in town for the last 13 years, he wrote.

The firm followed up the written apology with a personal visit to last week’s selectmen’s meeting by managing partner Alan E. Lieberman, who reiterated the firm’s remorse.

“It was undoubtedly deeply hurting and obviously very inflammatory,” Lieberman said of Hollister’s remarks, “and we understand the reaction from the town.”

Ugh.

While S&G refused to pull out of representing this specific client, the whole tone of this effort to roll over when an adversary gets huffy is bad news for legal advocacy generally. The ProPublica report notes that another Connecticut town has already successfully pulled this stunt with S&G — in that case forcing the firm to drop its client. The Westport school board now has to consider whether or not they’ll cave to pressure too.

Sponsored

Now towns have a blueprint for how to silence housing advocates.

This Lawyer Fought Housing Segregation. Now Wealthy Suburbanites Want to Fire His Firm. [ProPublica]

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

, , , ,