10/4/07 - Public Defender’s suit questions judge’s conduct

(As published by the Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

A seemingly simple Family Court case that has already been drawn into the larger controversy over the county’s conflict attorney position, now may also spill over into a discrepancy over judicial conduct.

Public Defender Keith Dayton has filed four pointed and critical objections to the conduct of County Judge William Ames, against whom Dayton has filed suit relating to Ames’ opposition to the newly created conflict attorney position.

Arguments in the suit, originally scheduled for Monday, were adjourned by Supreme Court Judge Kevin Dowd, with no new date yet set.

Dayton, on Sept. 17, filed four formal objections to Ames’ conduct surrounding the lawsuit, including Ames’ use of his courtroom as a forum “to attempt to advance his position relative to the pending” lawsuit.

Ames, in a counterclaim filed Sept. 26 by his attorney Edmund Hoffman Jr., outlined his opposition to the conflict attorney position, and argued that Dayton is pursuing a personal agenda with the case.

Dayton filed suit against Ames Aug. 21 after Ames removed Conflict Attorney Tom Miller from representing the father in a custody case due to Ames’ objections to the county’s Conflict Attorney Office, which was created in late 2006.

That action by Ames, which sent representation of the father back to the Public Defender’s office, effectively obliged Dayton’s office to cover both the father and the mother in the case, an unacceptable conflict of interest, Dayton said.

The conflict attorney position was created by the county Legislature in 2006, but was not filled until August.

Ames has said that he does not believe the position to be legal, that the Legislature superceded state law by creating the position, and that the position is too closely tied to the Public Defender’s office.

At an Aug. 30 hearing involving the parents involved in the custody case, Ames outlined his position for news media outlets he had invited to the proceeding.

Dayton, in his objections, takes issue with Ames’ use of that forum.

He notes that Ames had invited the news media to the proceeding and that, after once denying a request from Dayton to adjourn the conference before he spoke to the news media, Ames offered to adjourn the case after his remarks.

“Judge Ames knew or should have known that his public remarks may have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding … particularly in the eyes of the public,” Dayton’s objection reads.

Dayton also charges that Ames was “attempting to garner public (i.e. taxpayer) support,” by suggesting that his intent was to save taxpayer money, and that Ames “usurped” the role of the Supreme Court judge by “using his own forum to adjudge the matters of fact … as an unsworn witness and under the veil of his own judicial authority.”

Furthermore, Dayton notes that Ames had initially accepted Miller as the father’s attorney, and that a standing decision, issued Aug. 23, from Ames and fellow County Judge Julie Campbell declaring the position null and void came after Ames had dismissed Miller on Aug. 21.

“I object to Judge Ames attempting to insert … his own Standing Decision, which is dated after the date of my Petition, in an attempt to justify his actions,” Dayton’s objection reads.

Finally, because no legal challenge of the law creating the conflict attorney position was ever in front of Ames, the judge did not have the authority to rule on its legality, according to Dayton.