Attorney Conflict?

I am back... for a few days at least. For my real job (photography), this is conference season. I am a brand ambassador for a few different companies in the photography world and that means I travel to different conferences this time of year. I was in Destin since Friday for one and got back yesterday evening. I leave again for one Sunday and will not be back until Friday. So will be a chaotic couple of weeks.

Which also means I miss the PDC meeting next Thursday for the Holder Industrial Park application, but will keep you posted on that.

For today, we are going to Crystal River and city attorney Rob Batsel,

Last week, I challenged Crystal River to jump into the asphalt plant discussion and pick a side. Citizen Alan Ivory has been leading the charge against the asphalt plant was in attendance on Monday and asked the council two things.

#1) If they would take a stance on either side of this

#2) If city attorney had a conflict of interest since the city owns the land across the street from the proposed project.

Batsel kicked off the discussion disclosing that he represented the applicant (Anderson Columbia) but made it clear to them that he also represents Crystal River. He stated that he had just learned that the city owned the property across the street last week (perhaps he read my article) and that he did not know that when he filed the application.

He then stated that there was no conflict unless the council said there was a conflict. He tried to walk a fine line in what he was saying.

First, he stated he would not take on a client unless he felt that it was a good project. He then stated that he felt this was NOT incompatible with a spray field (city property) from a land use law perspective, but that it was not his decision to make.

Then stated that he did not want wade into it. He mentioned he would like the client to come to the council to discuss it because the information online was:

"Absolutely inaccurate mis-information. We live in a era of mis-information... fearmongering... and that is what Mr Ivory is doing."

Then Batsel goes on to state that he should not be telling the council about the other project and offered to leave the room and let the council make a decision without him there. He did not think it was necessary to step back from representing Anderson Columbia, but noted that his opinion did not matter.

The council then goes on to discuss the project and wanted to bring it back for a full discussion a month from now. This would allow them all to do additional research and allow staff to bring back more information. It appeared that all 5 of them were concerned about the project, in particular, the effects on the water supply and recharge areas.

But they want more information before deciding on sending a letter for or against the project.

Batsel then stated:

"If any one of you are outright against this project, I know what I need to do."

Councilmember Holmes stated that at the moment, he was against the project. Batsel then stated that he would recuse himself from the city representation on this matter as well as representation of Anderson Columbia and confirmed that to me in an email yesterday.

The city will now need to retain council to represent and advise them on this issue going forward and it appears Anderson Columbia will need to do the same, which may require them to delay the PDC hearing scheduled for April. We will see.

My question here is how did Batsel not know his client (the city) owned the property across the street. That is a pretty big thing to miss, but we are all human and make mistakes from time to time. As soon as I heard about the application, I went to the property appraiser's website to look at the parcel as well as the surrounding land to see what the zoning was.

It took me less than 2 minutes to see the city owned the land across the street. I would think an attorney would do the same for a client they are applying for a zoning change for... particularly when the argument going to be made will be compatibility with the surrounding land as it relates to the Comp Plan and LDC.

It blows my mind that this was missed and now both entities need to find new council to advise them going forward.

This reminds me of "issues" Gooding and Batsel (the law firm hired to represent Crystal River) going back to 2020 or so when there were concerns of conflict with the City of Ocala when they were representing them, then under Gilligan, Gooding, Batsel, Anderson & Phelan. This is part of the reason that Gooding and Batsel split from the law firm, although they stayed in the same building. Ocala ultimately created their own legal council in house, ending 30 years of representation by the law firm.

Here are three articles that discuss this from the Ocala Gazette.

City attorneys ask the city council to amend their contract

Tomorrow at the city council meeting, the city’s three attorneys, Robert Bastel Jr., Jimmy Gooding, and Patrick Gilligan, from the firm of Gilligan,

Ocala GazetteJames Blevins

City Council voices support for in-house legal department

The Ocala City Council has unanimously agreed to join other similarly sized cities in creating an in-house legal department to handle legal services, a

Ocala GazetteAmy Harbert

City attorneys object to questions about their ethics

The Ocala City Council was poised to decide Tuesday night whether to create an in-house legal department or continue to use an outside firm when they gave

Ocala GazetteJennifer Murty

Going to be interesting to see how this application plays out now that the City would like to explore it more to determine where they stand and Anderson Columbia needing a new attorney.