Senoia v. Senoia | Part 6: Is It Worth It?

Editor’s Note: In this continuing series, The Citizen is examining the civil lawsuit filed by the City of Senoia against former City Manager Harold Simmons, former Mayor Dub Pearman and former Mayor and former Assistant City Manager Jeff Fisher. Earlier installments examined the official-immunity hearing, the city’s budgeting practices, a compensation study, the demolition of a Sharpsburg church and whether the matter had been referred for a criminal investigation. All three defendants deny wrongdoing. Judge Jephson Bendinger has not ruled on whether the defendants are protected by official immunity, and the allegations in the city’s complaint have not been decided at trial.

Senoia has spent $6,141.38 in attorney fees investigating and suing three of its former leaders, according to Mayor Scott Tigchelaar.

That figure may appear modest for a case that has already produced a lengthy complaint, months of investigation and a two-day evidentiary hearing in Coweta County Superior Court.

It is modest largely because attorney Steve Greene and his firm, Matthews & Greene, are doing most of the work without charging the city.

But the litigation is not free. Senoia is also paying Smith Welch Webb & White, and the city could face significantly higher expenses if the case moves beyond the pending official-immunity decision into discovery, depositions, additional hearings, trial and possible appeals.

The three defendants are paying too.

Former Mayor Dub Pearman told The Citizen before the July hearing that Simmons, Fisher and he each initially paid a $10,000 retainer to their attorney. Pearman estimated at the time that their combined legal expenses had reached approximately $50,000 before the two-day immunity hearing occurred.

Those amounts may now be higher.

All of that creates a question that reaches beyond whether the city’s allegations are eventually proved:

Is pursuing this lawsuit worth what it may ultimately cost Senoia and the people it is suing?

A volunteer offer becomes a lawsuit

Greene said he did not approach Tigchelaar expecting to conduct an investigation or sue anyone.

After Tigchelaar won the November 2025 election, Greene said he emailed the mayor-elect to congratulate him. The two had never met, according to Greene.

Greene said he explained that he was an employment lawyer with more than 40 years of experience and frequently spent weekends in Senoia because his grandchildren lived there. He offered to answer employment questions for the incoming administration and made clear that he was not seeking a paid relationship.

“This was just a logical extension,” Greene said. “I didn’t realize what we’re going to find. Things started to unfold, and employees began to come forward after the election.”

Greene said what began as an offer to provide occasional employment guidance expanded as the new administration examined Simmons’ compensation, city records, the Sharpsburg church debris and other matters.

“When I volunteered, had no idea that we were talking about unauthorized salary. No idea debris field. No idea of the working seven hours a week,” Greene said. “It was an evolving thing, and it changed week after week.”

Greene said he is financially able to perform the work without charging Senoia because his firm has paying corporate clients and he does not depend on the city’s business.

“I don’t need to charge. I don’t want to charge,” Greene said. “In my view, the city’s already been kind of ripped off, and it’s a shame if the city has to lose more money.”

That statement reflects Greene’s conclusion about the case. It is not a court finding. Whether the city was improperly deprived of money is among the questions still being litigated.

Simmons, Pearman and Fisher deny that the compensation changes were unauthorized. They maintain that the mayor and council approved annual budgets containing the city manager’s pay and that the actions challenged by the city occurred within their official roles.

A lawyer with a history

Greene’s decision to work without charge becomes more complicated because he had previously clashed with Senoia’s former leadership.

During his interview with The Citizen, Greene acknowledged the earlier zoning dispute and described purchasing a historic Senoia house that he wanted to preserve and update. He later sought a different permitted use for the property and disagreed with the way city officials handled the request.

Former Mayor Dub Pearman testified that Greene sought to change the property from residential zoning to commercial, office and institutional use.

“We were not in support,” Pearman testified.

Asked whether Greene’s prior dealings with the city affected Pearman’s willingness to cooperate with an investigation led by Greene, Pearman answered, “It certainly raised my eyebrows.”

Defense attorney Chuck Boring was more direct in an interview with The Citizen.

“We find out through Jeff Fisher, this man has had an ax to grind with Jeff and Dub and all those people for years,” Boring said. “He should have never been involved.”

Greene has rejected the contention that the property dispute motivated his work for Senoia. But the correlation is easy to see: a lawyer who had been unhappy with decisions made under the former leadership is now working without charge to investigate and sue members of that leadership.

That correlation does not prove retaliation. A person can have a legitimate grievance with a government and later uncover unrelated conduct that deserves scrutiny. But the previous dispute provides important context for the defense claim that Greene came into the investigation with existing opinions about the people now being sued.

Greene’s own comments show that those views extend beyond detached legal analysis. Discussing Fisher, Greene said many people viewed the former mayor and assistant city manager as dismissive of opinions and concerns that differed from his own.

No court has found that Greene has a conflict of interest or that his prior dealings with Senoia disqualify him from representing the city.

Political accountability or political retaliation?

The defense has also characterized the broader lawsuit as an extension of the 2025 election.

“I think the evidence was overwhelming that this was a political hit job,” Boring said. “This was a vendetta.”

Tigchelaar rejects that characterization.

“They keep saying it’s a personal political vendetta or whatever,” he said. “I won the election. I don’t know where that comes from.”

Tigchelaar has said all five members of the current council examined the evidence and unanimously supported pursuing the city’s claims. In his view, election victory did not end the city’s responsibility to determine whether public money had been improperly spent.

The competing explanations cannot be resolved by the election result alone.

Tigchelaar had already defeated Pearman. Simmons and Fisher had already left their City Hall positions. The lawsuit therefore was not necessary to remove them from power.

The city says it continued because current officials had a duty to recover public money and address alleged misconduct they discovered after taking office.

The defense says the new administration used government authority to continue a political fight after it had already won.

Neither explanation has been adopted by the court.

What Senoia has paid

In a written response to questions from The Citizen, Tigchelaar said the city has paid $6,141.38 in attorney fees associated with the investigation and litigation since Jan. 5, the day Simmons and Fisher left their city positions.

“Matthews & Greene has agreed to perform its work at no cost to the City,” Tigchelaar wrote.

Tigchelaar said Smith Welch is working at a discounted rate. He estimated that Smith Welch will perform approximately 10% of the work through trial, with Matthews & Greene and attorneys assigned through the city’s insurance coverage performing the remainder.

The mayor did not provide a projection of the total amount the litigation may cost if it continues through trial.

The $6,141.38 therefore represents what Tigchelaar says the city has paid so far—not a cap on what Senoia may eventually spend.

Greene has said the case may still be near its beginning.

Unless Judge Bendinger grants the motion to dismiss on every claim against all three defendants, Greene estimated after the July hearing that the case may be only about 15% complete.

“If every claim is thrown out for immunity against all three, then we’ll be at the end of the road,” Greene said. “It’s much more likely that we may be 15% into this thing. This is the beginning.”

The defendants have not yet filed answers to the underlying allegations because their immunity motion came first.

If any claims survive, the next stages could include document discovery, depositions, expert analysis, additional motions, a trial on the underlying allegations and appeals.

What the city hopes to recover

Against those costs, Tigchelaar says Senoia is pursuing more than $625,000 in presently estimated damages, plus several categories that have not yet been assigned a dollar amount.

The city’s current figures include $176,705.24 in compensation the city alleges was improperly paid to Simmons, an estimated $33,600 to remove the Sharpsburg church debris from city property and approximately $415,000 under a breach-of-employment-contract theory based on the city’s contention that Simmons worked substantially fewer hours than his position required.

Together, those figures total approximately $625,305.

That total does not include possible environmental testing and remediation, health-insurance premiums, pension contributions, punitive damages or attorney fees the city may seek.

None of those amounts has been awarded by a court.

The $176,705.24 figure is connected to compensation increases identified in the amended complaint. Simmons disputes that the increases were unauthorized and testified that mayor and council approved his compensation through the annual budget process.

The estimated $33,600 debris-removal expense is also disputed. The city alleges Simmons used city property to dispose of debris from a church with which he had personal ties. Simmons testified that he acted as Senoia’s city manager to assist Sharpsburg and believed portions of the material could benefit Senoia.

The approximately $415,000 employment claim is based on a new assertion Tigchelaar made in his written response to The Citizen.

“Based upon information provided by City Hall employees and a detailed review of email and text communications involving Harold, we will offer evidence reflecting that Harold worked on average 8 hours per week during that time period,” Tigchelaar wrote. “The City’s breach of employment contract damage to the City in terms of salary is approximately $415,000.”

Tigchelaar further asserted that Simmons was not entitled to participate in the city’s health-insurance plan during that period and that city pension contributions were inflated.

Those are assertions by Tigchelaar and the city. They have not been established in a judicial ruling. The source material presently available to The Citizen does not independently prove that Simmons worked an average of eight hours per week or establish that he was ineligible for employee benefits.

Simmons has denied the city’s portrayal of his work. During the immunity hearing, he testified that he always worked the required 40 hours, although he said his status as an exempt employee allowed him to adjust when and where some of that work was performed.

Winning would not necessarily mean collecting

Even if the city prevails, a judgment does not guarantee immediate repayment.

Tigchelaar acknowledged that Senoia may be unable to recover all the money at once and could have to collect from the defendants over time.

Greene made a similar point.

“If the city prevails and recovers its attorney’s fees, and if I charged corporate hourly rates, then we got to collect from Harold, Dub and Jeff, and that’s going to be pretty tough,” Greene said.

That creates a second calculation beyond whether the city can prove its claims:

How much of any judgment could actually be collected, how long would collection take, and how much additional money would Senoia spend obtaining and enforcing it?

The answers are not yet known.

The city could also prevail on some claims but not others, recover less than it is seeking or obtain a judgment that does not include every category identified by Tigchelaar.

The approximately $625,000 figure therefore is not the present value of the lawsuit. It is the amount the city currently says it will try to establish and recover.

The defendants’ costs

The city’s relatively low legal bill stands in contrast to the costs described by the defendants.

Pearman said before the immunity hearing that each defendant had paid an initial $10,000 retainer and that their attorney continued working on what Pearman described as a running balance.

“Oh my God, our attorney fees are—we’ve hit probably $50,000 so far, and we haven’t even got to court,” Pearman told The Citizen before the July proceeding.

Asked whether all three had paid retainers, Pearman answered, “All three of us had to put that in a retainer, and everything else our attorney has just got it on a rolling tab.”

The July proceeding was a two-day evidentiary hearing on official immunity, not a trial deciding the underlying allegations. The parties are now preparing post-hearing briefs before Judge Bendinger rules.

The defendants’ expenses may therefore have increased substantially since Pearman’s interview.

Fisher said their attorney charges $750 an hour and that paralegal work costs an additional $250 an hour.

What happens if Senoia loses?

The financial risk does not end with Senoia’s own legal bills.

Pearman told The Citizen that he believes the city will have to pay the defendants’ legal expenses if the court rules in their favor.

“But here’s the kicker,” Pearman said. “If the courts rule in our favor, the city has to pay for all of our legal bills.”

That would not happen automatically merely because Senoia loses.

The defendants could ask the court to award attorney fees and litigation expenses, but they would have to establish a legal basis for such an award. The court would then have to make the required findings.

Ordinary court costs are separate from full reimbursement of attorney fees.

If Judge Bendinger grants immunity to one or more defendants, the city could be responsible for allowable court costs associated with the unsuccessful claims. The defendants could also seek reimbursement of attorney fees and other litigation expenses.

Whether they would receive those fees—and how much—would depend on why the claims were dismissed, what requests the defendants make and what the court finds about the city’s legal and factual basis for bringing them.

The city could therefore lose without being ordered to reimburse every dollar spent by the defense.

It could also face a substantial additional bill if a court concludes that some or all of the claims lacked substantial justification or were pursued improperly.

With three defendants, each represented through a case that has already included months of preparation and a two-day hearing, that potential exposure could be significant.

The defendants have also discussed the possibility of bringing later claims against the city or its officials. No such case has been filed, and losing the present lawsuit would not by itself establish defamation or any other claim. But further litigation would create additional costs even before its merits were decided.

Different definitions of accountability

Tigchelaar argues that the current mayor and council have a duty to investigate, inform the public and seek restitution when they believe city money was improperly spent.

“Our pursuit of justice in this matter is without malice,” he wrote. “Any mischaracterization of motive by the defendants is an attempt at distraction.”

The first sentence states the mayor’s position. The second assigns a motive to the defendants that Tigchelaar has not established.

The defendants say they are not distracting from the allegations. They contend the lawsuit itself is the problem: an expensive government action emerging from a bitter election and led by an attorney who had his own difficult history with the former administration.

Their legal costs are real regardless of how the case ends.

So are the city’s expenses.

Neither side can yet know whether those costs will ultimately be recovered.

For now, the financial comparison looks favorable to Senoia on paper: approximately $6,100 paid in attorney fees against more than $625,000 in damages the city says it intends to pursue.

But that comparison depends on a series of outcomes that have not occurred.

The city must survive the pending immunity decision. It must prove its remaining claims. It must establish the amount of legally recoverable damages. It must prevail through any appeals. And after all of that, it must collect whatever judgment it receives.

If Senoia does not prevail, it will have spent public money on a case that produced no recovery. It may also be responsible for court costs and could face requests for the defendants’ attorney fees and litigation expenses.

The defendants, meanwhile, must continue paying to defend themselves unless the case is dismissed, resolved or another source covers their expenses.

Judge Bendinger’s pending ruling will answer only the next question: whether any or all of the defendants are protected by official immunity.

It will not necessarily decide whether the city was right to sue.

And it will not answer the broader question Senoia residents may ultimately have to judge for themselves:

Was the possible recovery worth the money, division and risk required to pursue it?