Judge tosses conflict claim

Sept. 12, 2005 -- A judge has rejected plaintiffs in a lawsuit related to the county pension scandal have no standing to pursue their claim that lawyers with the Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren firm have a conflict of interest in the case, according to the Journal Sentinel.

Reinhart lawyers helped design the pension package and now are defending the county in the lawsuit, filed on behalf of county employees who claim the pension enhancements were improperly enacted, among other things.

Law firm memo from Republican bigwig mixes business with politics
Appears to be "plotting political graft," Democracy Campaign's McCabe says

Aug. 30, 2005 -- A top state Republican and partner in a prestigious local law firm told legal colleagues he would seek new business for the firm from County Executive Scott Walker and at the same meeting offer to throw a fundraiser for him, court records show.

"i am meeting with scott walker next wed at 5 to discuss some political things," wrote Richard W. Graber, chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin and partner in the Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach law firm. "at the same time, i would like to give him a summary of what we have done for the county and what we would like to do going forward. please send me your summary and wish list prior to that time. i will offer to do a fundraiser in the near future. has anyone else done county work?"

Graber's May 16, 2002 e-mail, mailed with "milw. cnty" in the subject line, was addressed to fellow lawyers in the Reinhart firm.

"What does it look like?" said Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Executive Director Michael McCabe. "Plotting political graft, that's what it looks like."

Graber, though, said McCabe is wrong.

The Reinhart firm "never engaged in political quid pro quo and never will," Graber said.

The e-mail was "a cryptic internal memo" and that no fundraiser or additional business resulted from the meeting.

The firm represents the county's Pension Board and the county in a class action lawsuit stemming from the county's pension scandal two years ago.

The memo was filed in court by the plaintiffs in that suit.

Graber said the firm's relationship with Pension Board and county pre-dated Walker's 2002 election.

Law firm that helped create pension deal becomes issue in lawsuit

Aug. 25, 2005 -- Lawyers with a politically-connected Milwaukee law firm that helped craft the county's mega-million dollar county pension and sick leave package advised its Pension Board clients so poorly it may be liable for some of the pension deal's costs, according to new filings in a lawsuit.

Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach lawyers actually helped former Corporation Counsel Robert Ott and former county Human Resources Director Gary Dobbert illustrate the workings of the now-infamous pension "backdrop" before it was adopted by calculating hypothetical payouts for Ott and former Executive F. Thomas Ament, according to documents attached to the filings.

(The linked pages are from an Oct. 20, 2000 Reinhart client memorandum.The officials' names were removed from the final draft of the document.)

The pension enhancements were adopted by the County Board in November 2000. Ament and Ott were forced to resign when the pension scandal erupted the next year. Dobbert eventually was convicted of felony misconduct in office.Reinhart continues to represent the county and the Pension Board.

Lump sum backdrop payments are expected to cost the county $42.8 million this year alone, according to the filings.

The new filings come from John F. Fuchs and Eugene O. Duffy, lawyers in a class action lawsuit against the county and the pension board alleging the pension enhancements were illegally enacted and deprived their clients of property rights in the pension trust without just compensation.

The court filings allege work the Reinhart firm did for county management in designing the fund was improperly charged to the county's pension fund, when it should have been charged to the county. The billing was disguised so that it appeared properly charged to the fund, according to the filings.

Duffy and Fuchs allege Reinhart has a conflict of interest because of its potential fiscal liability arising from an indemnification agreement in its contract with the Pension Board. The conflict means Reinhart should be removed from the case, they say.

"Reinhart cannot 'reasonably believe' its represention of the Pension Board and County would not be adversely affected when the money that the (pension system) needs to pay for the ...benefits could come from Reinhart's own assets," Duffy/Fuchs wrote.

Reinhart, in its response, declined to get in a "swearing match" over some of the allegations, but denied it should be removed from the case.

The Duffy / Fuchs filings are only an effort to delay a judge's ruling on whether to dismiss the case entirely, wrote Reinhart lawyer Scott Hansen.

"Plaintiffs clearly want to forestall the day of reckoning," he said. "Plaintiffs need to keep their legal theories alive until they can figure out another way to recover."

"The irony is thick," he wrote. "A group of plaintiffs seeking more than $100 million pretends to set aside partisanship and offer its 'objective' opinion about how an 'unbiased' lawyer would counsel that group's adversaries."

Fuchs and Duffy say Reinhart should "have advised the (Pension) Board that the benefits could not and should not be enacted" until an actuary had determined the cost implications.

"No such advice was provided," they wrote.

Reinhart lawyers did ask on Oct. 23, 2000 -- four days before the pension deal was considered by the county's Pension Study Committee and recommended to the County Board -- whether an actuarial review had been done, Duffy/Fuchs wrote. But the memo containing that question was provided to only two people -- Dobbert and Ott, according to the filings.

"This memo was never provided to the chairman of the Pension Board, nor the Pension Board as a whole," the lawyers wrote. Dobbert was a member of the Pension Board; Ott was not. Neither belonged to the Pension Study Committee.

Reinhart said a county pension official told a firm lawyer that that the plan had been reviewed by an actuary.

If the firm has any financial liability in the case -- which it does not concede -- Reinhart might be expected to defend the county "more vigorously than expected because the firm's own interests were on the line also," Hansen wrote.

Reinhart also said the plaintiffs lack standing to seek the firm's removal from the case, and that representing both the county and the Pension Board in the case does not pose a conflict. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried twice before to get the Reinhart firm booted from the case, Hansen wrote.

Corporation Counsel William J. Domina agreed in writing to allow Rinehart to continue representing both parties. Fuchs and Duffy argue, however, that "Domina has no authority" to select the Pension Board's counsel.