Despite an effort by the Hudson County freeholders to evenly distribute labor attorney fees between two rival politically connected firms, the county’s Law Department may have been assigning more cases to one than to the other, forcing the freeholders to shift funds to pay the bills.
“What we’re doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul,” said Freeholder Bill O’Dea, “or should I say robbing Donald to pay Ray?”
In two resolutions, the freeholders agreed to take $100,000 from a budget line item assigned to pay the legal firm of Scarinci & Hollenbeck, of Secaucus, and assign the money to a line item designed to pay Weiner Lesniak of Parsippany.
Donald Scarinci and Ray Lesniak, principal owners of the two firms, have been part of an ongoing political duel in Hudson County over the last four years. During the rise to power of former assemblyman and former Union City Mayor Rudy Garcia in 1999, the Freeholders accommodated Garcia by appointing Weiner Lesniak – the firm to which Garcia is a member – to divide labor attorney duties with the Scarinci’s firm. The move was seen as a significant coup when it occurred, especially because of apparently strong political connections between Garcia and then-County Executive Robert Janiszewski.
While Garcia’s political fortunes have declined since county divided the labor duties, Weiner Lesniak was still retained. Partner Ray Lesniak, a powerful state senator, has significant influence with the newly elected Democratic governor.
Although the division of legal labor duties was supposed to be divided evenly between the two firms – with a contract of $270,000 to each firm during the 2001/2002 fiscal year – most of the litigation duties were assigned to Weiner Lesniak so that by the end of December, the firm had already billed the county $265,000. With the term of the contracts running from July 2001 to June 2002, this left five months of work ahead, and ran the risk that county would run out of funds with which to pay Weiner Lesniak over the upcoming months. Since Scarinci’s firm – assigned largely to labor negotiations – had billed the county only $35,000, the Freeholders decided to take $100,000 from the Scarinci line-item to make certain Weiner Lesniak’s bills were covered.
Hudson County Counsel Joseph Sherman – a former attorney with Scarinci Hollenbeck – said the division of labor would be reviewed with assignments shifted to make the duties between the two firms more equal.
Asked to explain
O’Dea, along with Freeholder Al Cifelli, has asked that representatives from the firms be brought in to explain the situation. The freeholders also want to send a clear message to Weiner Lesniak that no more money will be made available to cover additional legal costs this year.
Freeholder Chairman Sal Vega said the additional $100,000 is a final cap on spending in that area. “If they give us a bill that goes above that, too bad,” Vega said.
Vega said that while the freeholders decided to divide duties between the two firms, the real power to assign cases rests in the county’s Law Department.
“It is clear the Law Department steered cases to Weiner Lesniak,” Vega said.
O’Dea also complained about the increases in these legal fees since the services were divided in 1999.
“When we started this, we had one firm we paid $150,000 a year,” he said. “When we divided the duties, we were supposed to pay each $75,000. Then we started paying them $150,000. Now we’re paying them $270,000 each. Where does it end?”
Vega agreed that the fees seemed to have become inflated over the years, and said the administration would have to send a message to both firms to hold a line on spending.
Sherman – whose takeover as Hudson County counsel in the wake of the Janiszewski’s resignation late last year was seen as a victory for Scarinci – said he has already taken steps to rearrange duties between the two firms and has started to have county employees do more legal work in order to reduce the cost of legal contracts.
In another matter, Freeholder Barry Dugan asked about the rise in cost for defending sexual discrimination cases. He asked if the county is facing increasing charges of sexual harassment. The county spent significant revenues in the early 1990s as a result of suits of harassment filed against the Sheriff’s Department under the previous sheriff. Assistant County Administrator Steve Ross said that a $50,000 contract for a firm to handle sex harassment suits also included discrimination cases, although in most situations accusations of discriminations are worked out through negotiations.