I asked for a few minutes

to address you tonight. In the past couple of months,

there have been several letters to the editor printed in

one local newspaper accusing our firm, and more

particularly, Jim Webb, of a conflict of interest caused

a new, locally-owned, community bank named The Bank of

Georgia.

The accusations of a

conflict of interest apparently stem from the fact that

Steve Black and Mike Rossetti, two other local

businessmen, were also involved in starting this new bank

while they were also employees and possibly owners or

shareholders of local companies that from time-to-time

sue the city over development issues.

Please understand that the

bank is not a partnership, but is a corporation. Mr.

Webb, Mr. Black, Mr. Rossetti, and nine others organized

the bank and sit on its board of directors. It has more

than 300 shareholders and I believe most of these

shareholders are Peachtree City residents.

When Mr. Webb first agreed

to sit on the bank board, we reviewed our state ethical

codes to ensure there was no ethical conflict. It is

common practice for attorneys in Georgia (and quite

probably city attorneys) to sit on bank boards.

After these letters began

appearing in the local newspaper, we contacted the State

Bar of Georgia in order to obtain an official opinion of

whether or not Mr. Webb's position on the bank would

present a conflict of interest with our position as City

Attorney. We were told that we would have to wait one to

two years in order to obtain a written opinion from the

State Bar.

So, we again reviewed the

ethical rules and conducted legal research. We even

contacted the American Bar Association. After all of

that, we arrived at the same conclusion - Mr. Webb's

status as a shareholder and director of the bank does

not, in and of itself, present a conflict of interest. We

have even consulted with a journalism and ethics

professor who has confirmed that there is no conflict of

interest.

As with all clients, we

must be ever mindful of potential conflicts which may

arise between our clients and which may arise between our

clients and our personal interests. Lawyers in the state

of Georgia are governed by a set of written Standards of

Conduct. The pertinent standard reads as follows: Except

with the written consent or written notice to his client

after full disclosure a lawyer shall not accept or

continue employment if the exercise of his professional

judgment on behalf of his client will be or reasonably

may be affected by his own financial, business, property

or personal interest. Rule 4-102, Standard 30.

Presently, in our opinion,

there is absolutely no conflict between Mr. Webb's

involvement with the Bank of Georgia and our firm

representing the city of Peachtree City.

First, the Bank of Georgia

was not open for business when these letters began

appearing. Second, the Bank of Georgia had not made any

loans to any person or company when they first appeared.

Third, the Bank of Georgia has had no issues with - and

quite probably has no contact with - the city of

Peachtree City. There simply is nothing on which to base

an allegation of conflict.

These letters to the editor

have also accused our firm of being intertwined with

Pathway Communities. Let me state that we have not

represented Pathway or PCDC in the entire time we have

been attorneys for Peachtree City.

I do not know if we have

ever represented any of the many employees or former

employees of that company in a personal injury claim,

criminal defense claim, or domestic relations action.

However, I do not believe that we have represented any of

the principals or "major players" of PCDC or

Pathways in such capacities.

To my knowledge, none of

our present clients has a claim adverse to Peachtree City

which would require our firm to either disqualify itself

from representing both parties or would require our firm

to receive a written consent from such parties. Also, to

my knowledge, none of the attorneys at Webb, Stuckey

& Lindsey, LLC, has a financial interest which would

be adverse to the city of Peachtree City.

If we ever have a situation

which presents a conflict of interest with the city of

Peachtree City, believe me, we will immediately notify

the Council and leave it to Council to determine the

direction to take as far as our representation of the

city.

Our firm is vigilant in

protecting itself and our clients from conflicts of

interest. We use a computer program to assist us. Also,

our attorneys routinely discuss new matters which are

brought into the firm so that we can avoid the

possibility of such conflicts.

Now, I would like to

directly address the letters and the journalistic style

of a particular local paper. I believe, in general, that

letters to the editor began appearing in the local paper

on a regular basis sometime during the last few years.

These letters have become increasingly outrageous. They

frequently contain misinformation and statements which

are blatantly inaccurate.

It seems that the same

small group of authors sends most of these letters. On

frequent occasions, an author has more than one letter

per week printed in the newspaper. These letters appear

so frequently that they are more like editorials,

condoned and encouraged by the paper, than more

traditional "letters to the editor."

I have never seen a

newspaper engage in this type of conduct. These letters

are only rarely complimentary and invariably find

something negative to discuss about our city and county

government and our fine community. It is almost

impossible to defend oneself against these constant

allegations because the paper has the power of the press

and can pick and choose what it elects to print.

Thus far, council and our

office have chosen to ignore them, feeling that the vast

majority of our citizens know the real truth. However,

the accusations contained in these most recent letters

have continued to escalate and have now exceeded the

bounds of fair comment.

As the City Attorneys, we

expect to receive some heat from time to time over legal

opinions that we give to the city. Such heat goes with

the territory. As we all know, we simply tell you what we

believe are the legal ramifications of your decisions and

give you recommendations. We do not decide the course of

action you take - you do.

We are not infallible and

perhaps there have been times when our advice could have

been second-guessed, but we have never given you advice

that we believed to be wrong when we gave it. We feel

that we have served this city with integrity and honor

during our eight years and hope you feel we have done an

excellent job.

The recent letters,

however, have not criticized our opinions. These letters

have attacked our ethics, have made claims that we have

not properly represented the city, have made claims that

we maintained improper and unethical relationships which

have negatively affected our clients (and, in particular,

the city), and have made claims that we improperly

profited from our representation of the city. We can no

longer stand by while the ethics of our firm and of its

attorneys are attacked, especially when done so in the

news media. There is absolutely no basis for these

attacks and such attacks are clearly libelous.

To my knowledge, no lawyer

in our firm has ever breached his or her ethical

obligation to any of our clients by allowing his or her

personal interests to interfere with our duty to properly

represent our clients or ever placed his or her personal

interests above the interests of our clients. Ever.

Additionally, we have not

reaped some huge financial reward in representing the

City. Rather, we have represented the City at hourly

rates which are far below our standard hourly rates. We

have also sent two, and sometimes three, lawyers to

meetings and yet only charged for one lawyer. When

training lawyers, we never make a charge to the city for

such training. For the past two years, our firm's annual

billings to the City have been just over $100,000. For

both years, this represented less than one-thirtieth

(1/30th) of the total income of our firm.

In addition, in both years,

we donated to the city, through the Development

Authority, $25,000 each year to sponsor the Summer

Concert Series. We view the sponsorship as an act of good

will and as a means of supporting our community. The

implication that we have "gotten rich" off of

the city is simply false and ludicrous.

We believe that the intent

of these letters to the editor and the newspaper's

decision to publish them was designed solely to poison

the community's feeling toward Mr. Webb and our firm

regarding our representation of the city. It is also our

belief that the misleading headlines attached to these

letters were added by the local newspaper.

Several days ago, my law

partner wrote to the author of most of these letters and

to the newspaper which printed these letters alerting

them that these statements were defamatory. He demanded a

retraction. Even after being given this opportunity to

recant, no retraction or apology was made or printed.

In fact, in an

almost-unbelievable show of arrogance, the newspaper

printed our letters as if there was something improper in

our demanding a retraction, and then the paper published

additional letters from this same small group of authors

that again implied some wrongdoing. This has got to stop!

So our firm is left with a

difficult decision. We can either withdraw our

application to remain as City Attorney and let this kind

of conduct go unchecked, or we can stand up and fight.

The attorneys in our firm are not accustomed to standing

Someone has to bring a halt

to this type of inappropriate journalism and the slurring

of people with excellent reputations. We will not

withdraw our application and cannot stand idly by while

our firm and lawyers are libeled by these "Letters

to the Editor," and, more importantly, the

newspaper's willingness to print these untruths.

Not one of these letter

writers or the newspaper has asked Mr. Webb or me to

comment on these allegations. If someone was interested

in the truth, wouldn't they ask us about it? So, we

choose to stand and fight and look forward to the

opportunity of righting these wrongs in a court of law.

There is nothing more important to a lawyer and a law

firm than their reputation; we will defend the reputation

of our firm and the lawyers who work there.

Therefore, and with some

regret, I am announcing to Council and to the public,

that earlier today we filed suit in Fayette County

Superior Court on behalf of Jim Webb and the law firm of

Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey against Mr. Stephen Brown,

Fayette Publishing Inc., the publisher of The Citizen

Newspaper and The Peachtree City Citizen Review, and its

publisher, Mr. Calvin Beverly, personally, for libel.

This litigation is likely

to be both lengthy and expensive; however, we are

prepared to fight and fight we will.

Even though there clearly

is no conflict of interest, so there can be absolutely no

question about the appropriateness of our conduct while

we litigate these baseless allegations, during the

pendency of this suit, Mr. Webb will not represent the

city.

As all of you know, Mr. Ott

and I have done the bulk of the city's work for the last

few years. Mr. Webb has essentially supervised the city's

litigation and consulted with us on strategy issues. He

will voluntarily discontinue all such activity until

these wrongs are righted.

I consider this a loss to

the city in that all of you recognize that Mr. Webb is

one of the most respected trial lawyers in this state

and, to the best of my knowledge, is the only lawyer in

Fayette County who is certified in trial law by the

National Board of Trial Advocacy. He is also the former

state chairman of the General Practice and Trial Section

of the Georgia Bar.

Believe me, his credentials

are impressive. His counsel on city matters will be

missed.

On a personal note, I think

that these libelous remarks have done a great disservice

not only to Mr. Webb, his family and our law firm, but to

the reputation of our town.

Americans believe in

freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but these

constitutional rights are limited. People cannot just say

or write anything. Newspapers cannot just print anything.

They have an obligation to tell, write, and print the

truth. Newspapers have an additional obligation to print

it objectively and accurately. They must balance the

right of a free press and the public's need to know with

the right of an individual to be protected from libelous

remarks which harm his good name and professional

reputation.

I hope this dispute can be

resolved in a court of law where there are rules that

control what can be said rather than this newspaper

continuing to bring discredit to our town by reporting

about this situation in a one-sided, distorted manner.

As it goes forward there

may very well be other parties added to this case before

all the truth is known regarding the motivations for this

conduct - but our firm will not be trying this case

in the newspapers. We will try it in a court of law where

honesty and integrity will prevail.

Finally, so that everyone

is clear about our intentions and our main purpose in

filing this lawsuit, I am stating publicly that our

current intention is that any monies which we may receive

as a result of this lawsuit will be given to a local

charity and not kept by any members of our firm.

Thank you for the

opportunity to speak tonight.