Agenda Packets - 2003/06/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Legal Services Report June 23, 2003 Page 2 Firm Interviewer #1 Interviewer #2 Interviewer #3 Interviewer #4 Kelly & Fawcett 2 1 1 2 Barna, Guzy & Steffen 1 3 4 1 Kennedy & Graven 4 4 2 3 Halleland Lewis Nilan 2 2 3 4 Based on the table above, if the firms were ranked in order of least points to most points, the firms would come out as follows: Rank Firm Score 1 Kelly & Fawcett 6 2 Barna, Guzy & Steffen 9 3 Halleland Lewis Nilan 11 4 Kennedy & Graven 13 One of the questions that was asked of all firms related to “timeliness” of firm response and how quickly the City could expect to receive a response to an e-mail or phone call. Related to that question was a follow up question which asked how “accessible” the attorneys were. Both Barna Guzy and Kelly & Fawcett answered that the City should expect an immediate response, if only to respond that they had received the City’s message. The attorney representing Barna Guzy indicated that he checks voice mail and e-mail on the hour even if not in the office and would return calls and messages immediately. Patrick Kelly, representing Kelly & Fawcett, indicated that the City would be put on a “hot list” and he would get the message and respond whether he was in the office or not. While the attorney representing Halleland Lewis indicated that the client would dictate the appropriate response time, it seemed less evident that responses would be immediate unless coded as a high priority or emergency. The most interesting discussion regarding response time occurred with Kennedy & Graven. Perhaps lending some explanation to what we have considered “less than desirable” response times over the last two years, Mr. Riggs indicated that the former administrator had established a hierarchy of matters and that certain City matters would take precedence over all other matters, which often meant delayed responses for non-administrative requests and questions. Mr. Riggs also indicated that he had suggested to the former administrator that City staff could contact another member of the Kennedy & Graven firm if he were unavailable and a response was needed immediately. The former administrator, it seems, was opposed to having another attorney assist for general legal questions, preferring all communication go through Mr. Riggs. Certainly it would have been beneficial having another attorney to call in the event the City Attorney was unavailable. Whichever firm the City decides to contract with, it will be imperative to have such a back-up attorney to avoid similar issues in the future. In the case of Kennedy & Graven, that person would be Bob Vose. In closing his remarks regarding availability and response times, Mr. Riggs said they would be willing to meet the City’s response expectations if chosen to be the City Attorney.