This story begins with an OPRA request to Hoboken City Hall for "any communications between Hoboken Councilpeople and anyone employed by, or representing Ryglicki and Gillman, P.C..."
The OPRA request was kicked back, and the Requestor notified me:
BY BREAKING HOBOKEN LAW, GIATTINO HAS WAIVED HER ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
If you recall, the "Ryglicki Opinion" was procured by Council VP Jen Giattino from a North Bergen law firm closely aligned with District 32 Senator Nick Sacco. Giattino presented the "Ryglicki Opinion" at a March City Council meeting to rebut the Hoboken Law Department on the legality of Giattino's ordinance to strip Rent Leveling Board appointments from Mayor Bhalla.
Now, it's perfectly legal for Council members to procure an independent legal opinion.
It's not perfectly legal for a Council person to accept a "gift" of legal services- or any gift equal to or above 25 dollars in value.
Giattino admitted on the public record, "no one paid" for the Ryglicki opinion, that makes it a gift.
Every NJ municipality has anti-corruption laws in place to prevent government officials from taking gifts. This is Hoboken's:
"No officer or employee of the City of Hoboken shall directly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift having a value of $25 or more, whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise or any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that such gift was intended to influence the officer or employee, or could reasonably be expected to influence the officer or employee in the performance of official duties or was intended as a regard for any official action on the officer's or employee's part."
Well, there are exceptions to the Attorney-Client privilege. In my opinion (and that of an attorney I asked), the one that directly applies here is called the Crime-Fraud exception: N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20.
"Under what courts call the "crime-fraud exception" to the attorney-client privilege, the privilege does not protect communications between clients and their lawyers which further client wrongdoing. Courts agree that the exception applies to crimes and traditional common law intentional fraud."Hey, I'm not a lawyer, but seems clear to me.
- It is undeniable and a matter of public record that Giattino admitted to accepting a gift of legal services.
- The act of procuring legal services for "free" in her capacity as a government official and not a private citizen, and for the purpose of changing Hoboken municipal law (a matter of public interest and public concern) violated Hoboken law.
- The Council VP has thus waived any right to privacy; the "privilege" of hiding her communications with Ryglicki & Gillman P.C. under the crime-fraud exception.
Again, GA is not a lawyer, but I suspect there are other reasons that Giattino has no right to the Attorney-Client privilege when the 'client' is a government official and the attorney is advising her on a matter of municipal law, not on a personal matter. It is called the public's right to know.
"NO" is not an answer. Hoboken's anti-corruption law is there for a reason.
Did Giattino promise anything in exchange for the "gift" (a quid pro quo)? Who else was copied on the communications?
The council communications with Ryglicki & Gillman, P.C. will be OPRAed again. Corporation Counsel will be asked to weigh in.
Funny, how unsigned legal opinions seem to materialize for certain council members.
THE RYGLICKI "GIFT"
I thought to have attorney-client privilege she would have had to pay for services. Interesting. In the movies or on tv, whenever someone asks for legal advice they had they attorney a dollar for the "privilege" thing.
ReplyDeleteHey, thanks snoopy! I had a conversation with a lawyer. He gave a variety of reasons that the attorney-client privilege does not apply here. I don't remember that one!
DeleteLOL But I saw it on TV GA. IT MUST BE REAL!
DeleteIt's real if you saw it on "FOX & Friends"!
DeleteSounds vaguely like trying to enforce an NDA that was never signed to conceal an affair that never happened to protect a candidate who didn’t know anything about it.
ReplyDeletejen learned well from her republican leader, it appears. i'd LOL but it's actually kind of sad, at this point she's not much of an improvement over nino.
DeleteWell Indie supports her so that should tell you how bad she is.
DeleteThe biggest problem here is that the "gift" obviously "could reasonably be expected to influence the officer or employee in the performance of official duties..."
ReplyDeleteBut even with that said, if Giattino had gotten the advice from her own lawyer friend without charge (like GA has gotten from "not Stempler") I wouldn't find it particularly troubling.
But this was not a "friend." This was a "gift" from a political player outside hoboken for the purpose of interfering in hoboken's local governance.
At a minimum, Giattino owes full disclosure over who provided her with this "gift" ie who Ryglicki directed Ryglicki to weigh in.
The point of seeking out another legal opinion was to find an attorney who would disagree with corporation counsel. "He who pays the piper calls the tune". The question remains; what form of "payment" will Ryglicki be seeking?
ReplyDeleteAnd now that they've appointed Fallick, will Ryglicki defend her when she, and the city, get sued by property owners for actions taken by an illegitimate board? And will the city's insurer protect Fallick when those inevitable suits occur?
The Council didn't have the votes to override Bhalla's veto. So, Cheryl's appointment was legal- the mayor appointed her. The politics discouraged Father Hall, and he withdrew from consideration, which created the opening for Fallick.
DeleteIn the worst days of Beth and her hyenas, that was an intended byproduct of the 24/7 political attacks: to make public service distasteful to “the wrong kind of people.” By which was meant simply people with the wrong friends.
DeleteThanks for clarifying, GA, It's hard to keep up with their bullshit.
DeleteSo we will have to suffer more of same from the outspoken Chery Fallick.
Outspoken by whom, remains to be seen.
It seems pretty obvious on its face that Giattino's solicitation and receipt of free legal services from someone trying to influence council members in the performance of their official duties is a clear violations of the gift prohibition.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody know what the process for addressing it is and what the penalty is supposed to be?
Good question @numberscruncher
ReplyDeleteGiattino broke Hoboken ethics law by accepting "gift" from law firm: §30-1
ReplyDelete§ 30-3 Penalties
"Any violations of the foregoing policy shall subject the violator to appropriate discipline pursuant to the established policies of the City as well as the rules and regulations of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, and a report of the violation shall be transmitted to the Local Finance Board within the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs for review as a potential violation of the New Jersey Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 et seq.
I'm glad folks are tuning in to this corrupt action. I am less concerned with penalties, than an apology to the people of Hoboken and payment to this law firm-- not with taxpayer money, either. Ironically, if she had been honest about it and brought the request to the council in the first place, they could have approved the expense. Too late.
The only recourse that would be applicable to a councilperson would be the referral to the LFB - basically an ethics complaint.
DeletePersonally, I don't care about an apology or about whether payment is made or even if an ethics complaint is filed. But I think Giattino owes the public transparency.
Fisher discloseddwho was behind her Dem Committee opinion, attributing it to the HCDO, which presumably means Nick Sacco and Joey Muniz (or their proxies).
Giattino ought to at least be as transparent as Fisher was and disclose who the actual donor of the "gift" was. Then the public could decide for itself whether it was improper.
Of course she owes the public transparency. That's why I've filed an OPRA.
DeleteFisher wasn't transparent AT ALL. All we have is her word that it came from an "HCDO attorney"-- her word isn't worth much, in my opinion. Her legal memo (1) was not on letterhead (2) had nothing to identify the author of the memo, or if the author was even an attorney and (3) was unsigned (which follows the logic of 1 and 2). Next, after we find out who authored the memo, we can see where the gift came from.
You're right - I'm taking Fisher at her word and that may be unwise. But at least she didn't pretend her memo simply floated down from the sky like Giattino did. Giattino owes the public an explanation of who arranged for Ryglicki to weigh in for free (or paid him). True or false, Fisher at least provided an explanation for us to believe or not believe. Giattino hasn't even done that.
Delete