The Amarillo City Council engaged in a heated debate during its regular meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 28, over the city's ongoing relationship with outside legal counsel, Hyde Kelley LLP. The discussion, which exposed deep divisions within the council, was prompted by a letter from the law firm criticizing Councilman Les Simpson’s stance on the city’s legal representation.
Despite expectations that the council would vote on terminating its agreement with Hyde Kelley LLP, the matter was ultimately tabled, leaving the firm's future with the city uncertain. However, the council did agree to establish new guidelines for hiring outside legal counsel in an effort to improve transparency and fiscal responsibility.
A Letter Sparks Public Dispute
The controversy began when Councilman Simpson requested that the council discuss its engagement with Hyde Kelley LLP, a firm initially hired in 2024 with a $95,000 budget. In September, the council approved an additional $250,000 for the firm’s services, a decision that has since faced scrutiny.
Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, George Hyde, a partner at the law firm, sent a letter to council members that criticized Simpson’s approach to legal representation. Hyde accused Simpson of attempting to terminate the firm’s services without first consulting legal experts.
“Mr. Simpson is not a lawyer and apparently did not seek the legal advice of anyone before he elected to challenge the attorney-client relationship with an attorney like me, who maintains the relationship with those who are willing and interested in abiding by their Oath of Office,” Hyde wrote.
Simpson insisted the letter be read publicly, prompting Mayor Cole Stanley to do so during the meeting. However, the decision to read the letter was met with strong objections from Councilman Tom Scherlen, who raised concerns about attorney-client privilege.
Scherlen demanded to know how the letter had been made public, asking, “Who released it to the public? How is that a public document? Who is violating my rights?”
Simpson admitted he had shared the letter with “people” but stopped short of confirming whether he had sent it to the media. The dispute over transparency escalated, with Scherlen questioning whether council members had knowingly leaked privileged information.
Concerns Over Legal Spending and Oversight
Following the reading of the letter, Simpson delivered a sharp critique of the city’s relationship with Hyde Kelley LLP, calling it a “poorly managed slush fund with no oversight, excess spending, and a troubling lack of transparency.”
Simpson argued that the firm’s invoices showed that taxpayer money had been spent on legal matters never discussed by the council or presented to the public. He expressed frustration that Hyde’s legal work was being directed by individual council members without proper authorization.
“I’m not even finding out about these issues until the money’s already been spent and until we get an invoice. Not much you can do about it at that point,” Simpson said.
He also pointed out that Hyde Kelley LLP had duplicated work done by the city's Internal Audit department, further raising concerns about wasteful spending.
Additionally, Simpson presented emails allegedly from Hyde, one of which advised council members to create separate email accounts for communication with him. Another email stated that Hyde had begun limiting invoice details to prevent the unintended release of information to the public.
“We have an attorney who has tricked us into using private emails and giving as little information as possible,” Simpson said. “Why are we being told to operate in the dark with zero transparency and accountability? Well, I guess his name is Hyde for a reason.”
His comment drew a mixture of laughter and groans from the audience.
New Legal Counsel Protocols Introduced
In response to the growing concerns over transparency and spending, the council reviewed a draft resolution outlining new protocols for engaging outside legal counsel. Under the proposed guidelines:
Council members must first bring legal concerns to the City Manager, who will attempt to resolve the issue.
If the City Manager cannot provide a solution, the City Attorney must then be consulted.
Only if neither the City Manager nor the City Attorney can resolve the issue may a council member seek outside legal counsel, but only with an approved letter of engagement from the council.
Council members may use up to $1,000 from the approved legal services budget without additional approval.
Any legal costs exceeding $1,000 will require a vote by the full city council.
Councilman Don Tipps supported the protocol, saying it provided much-needed structure. However, Scherlen voiced concern that restricting legal consultations to a pre-approved list of firms would limit the council’s options.
Mayor Stanley also objected to requiring council members to go through the City Manager first, arguing that city employees may not always have the best interests of the public in mind. “The council is the last line of defense for the public,” he said.
No Immediate Action on Hyde Kelley LLP
The council had planned to vote on a resolution (Agenda Item 9.F) that would have repealed its agreement with Hyde Kelley LLP. However, after extensive debate, the item was pulled from consideration, meaning no immediate action was taken on the firm’s contract.
Mayor Stanley defended the firm’s work, highlighting that a legal recommendation from Hyde Kelley LLP had led to a policy change that added $2 million to the city’s yearly budget.
“Do we not feel like this is money well spent for our citizens?” Stanley asked. “Then let’s cancel it. Let’s terminate it because you can’t afford $100,000 worth of legal fees that just saved you $2 million.”
Simpson, however, maintained that the issue was not whether outside legal counsel was needed but rather how the firm’s work had been directed and whether it had been done with proper oversight.
A final clash erupted between Simpson and Scherlen, leading to an intervention from Tipps, who urged the council to return to the matter at hand.
“This is not the subject matter,” Tipps interjected. “I would like you [City Attorney Bryan McWilliams] to step in and direct the meeting.”
With tensions still high, the council ultimately moved on to other agenda items, leaving the future of its relationship with Hyde Kelley LLP unresolved.
What’s Next?
While no decision was made on terminating the contract with Hyde Kelley LLP, the debate underscored ongoing tensions within the council over legal spending and governance. The new protocols for hiring outside legal counsel, though unofficial, are expected to guide future decisions on legal representation.
0 Comments