10/17/07 - Suits challenge judge over conflict attorney

Second judge drawn deeper into dispute over position

(As Published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

Two more lawsuits relating to the contentious debate over the county’s conflict attorney position were filed late last week, both drawing a second county judge who opposes the position deeper into the fray.

County Conflict Attorney Tom Miller filed suit Friday in state Supreme Court against county Judge Julie Campbell, claiming Campbell was wrong in removing Miller from a Family Court case based on Campbell’s opposition to the conflict attorney position.

Meanwhile on Thursday the client in the same Family Court case, Charles Miller of Cortland, also filed suit against Campbell.

“I just felt that my rights were being overlooked,” Charles Miller said of his decision to file his own suit. “She tried to make me take a lawyer that would have a conflict of interest with me … Mr. Miller was assigned to me, and she’s trying to make me give him up, but I’m not going to do that.”

The two suits bring to four the number of lawsuits filed regarding the conflict attorney position.

Public Defender Keith Dayton in August filed a suit similar to Tom Miller’s against county Judge William Ames for creating a conflict in Dayton’s office by removing Miller from representing a client, while three members of the Cortland County Bar Association have sued Cortland County, claiming the conflict attorney position was created illegally.

The two latest lawsuits take issue with Campbell’s decision to nullify an appointment of Tom Miller to handle Charles Miller’s case.

Charles Miller, who was engaged in a custody case, was referred to the conflict attorney because the Public Defender’s Office had previously represented the mother against Charles Miller in a previous, “bitterly contested case,” according to Tom Miller’s suit.

The conflict attorney’s suit lays out an extensive narrative of Campbell’s rejection of his representation of Charles Miller and, like Dayton’s suit against Ames, questions the judge’s conduct. For instance, the conflict attorney details a court appearance from Sept. 18 before which he met with Charles Miller, who agreed he wanted the conflict attorney to represent him.
The case was scheduled for 1:45 p.m., but was bumped in favor of a number of cases scheduled for later in the day, and not called until 3:15 p.m., Miller’s suit claims.

There is more in the print article, but you get the "big picture"...