There are discounted rates. Most of them, I believe, are a tiered structure. There may be a couple where the -- where they were -- where there were blended rates.
Is that right? Yeah, in no case -- The maximum rate in all those schemes is $200 per hour. 420 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
I've heard about your billing rate. Is there a cap per firm? I understand that you have an hourly rate.
Councilman DiCicco was saying that I could have built -- that I could have billed a fortune here today.
At least not a six-minute clock. And it might be 24, at least. 421 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Has it been... I know you've just laid out that there is a rate cap. When you put forward the list of the firms, can you attach the rates with the firms? Is there a cap on any of the firms, in terms of expenditure?
No such structure was negotiated, to my knowledge, before I got here. But it is a structure that has appealed to me and about which I've engaged in discussions with outside counsel.
Okay. The counsel for the City, are they working in any way, shape or form with counsel for any of the employees?
The counsel for the City, the two firms that you've hired for the City, are any of those attorneys working with or in cooperation with any of 422 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 the counsel for the employees?
The City collectively is cooperating with the government, with the Federal Government. There -- There -- There in the normal course of the representation may be some sharing of information among lawyers within the -- you know, within their ethical bounds.
Well, I thought part of the purpose here was that everyone would have separate counsel so that you would have no conflict.
Well, for what other reason would they need to talk to each other?
I don't -- I don't do that type of work, and I'm not in the middle of the discussions. I'm just trying to answer your question in a general way, which is they have to -- they -- they would, as people who are all experienced and all have reputations in what they do, 423 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 to abide by their ethical professional responsibilities, and their responsibilities to a grand jury, if appropriate, if that's the case.
Do you have a definitive number on the number of people who have actually testified at the grand jury?
If I did, I wouldn't say. I believe -- I probably could guess but --
Because it's a grand jury investigation. And I'm just not going to be the one to -- to be handing out information about what I know about a grand jury. I think too much of that has been -- has happened in --
I understand that. I'm not asking about grand jury. I'm asking how many public employees who 424 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 are being represented, either directly or indirectly, have testified. I mean, someone could stand out --
I understand it, and respect -- you know, obviously respect -- you know, respect you very much, Councilman, but -- but -- but I think it's the same answer.
But even with all that respect, I'm not getting an answer.
I understand 425 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 that.
You respect me immeasurably. Still not going to answer the question. This is apparently a fairly wide-ranging investigation, and you have a number of law firms involved, and there are a whole lot of actions and issues that have come up. Is there a process or procedure by which any of the firms that are providing representation, that we are assured that because of the -- at least the news accounts of the kinds of transactions or deals or contracts that have been reported in the press, that none of the attorneys involved or their firms might somehow at a later point in time become a part of or be required to provide information in this same investigation, if they're not within the scope of the investigation themselves?
Well, first of all, 426 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 that's so out there, I'm not sure how to take it on. First of all, the -- the -- the U.S. Attorney's Office, as demonstrated by their -- by their insistence on outside counsel in so many cases, is very cautious about the potential for conflict. And I couldn't imagine a more egregious, terrible conflict situation than -- than something like that, and trust the U.S. Attorney, they're looking at in this instance, would look out there and would find a way of letting us know not to hire somebody. And certainly, if we had any basis for -- any at all for thinking that that would be a problem, we...
Just a couple last questions. The 12 or 13 individuals who have specific representation, have they 427 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 testified at the grand jury?
You're... You're -- You're good. And despite my -- my -- the early -- my 4:30 start this morning, I still have enough wits about me to...
Is this the part where you tell me how much you respect me?
I appreciate that. So you have all the information requests?
Yes. We have one where we're supposed to get you first. I just wanted to make sure we were okay giving it to you. And we'll give it to you first thing. If not, we'll...
Last question. Have there been at this point any action -- 428 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 When you -- Again, when you go back to the Code Section, that talks about actions, causes of actions, and any and all claims made against these public employees. Have there been any of those circumstances yet? Have there been any actions or causes of action against anyone at the moment, any personal liabilities at this point?
The section here that talks about holding harmless officers, employees, whether currently employed or not against and from any and all personal liabilities, actions, causes of action, and any and all claims made against them.
This is all -- What I'm asking you is, are there any claims made against anyone at this point? 429 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
I mean, we're talking about a criminal context, so the question is whether somebody's been indicted. No, because not... Because I think we'd probably read about it first in the newspaper. But apart from that, the language here, I mean, those words together, those three lines in legalese means just about everything. What it does is, it's a broad scope of that section, in contrast, for example, to similar state statutes which are narrower.
Well, does it mean before the fact, during the fact or after the fact? I mean, it seems to be talking about if there is some personal liability, action, cause of action in any and all claims made against them. And what I'm asking you is, how does the present situation with those words in front of "made against them"? There have been none of these things 430 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 made against any of the represented individuals; is that correct?
What you're -- What you're getting at is the scope -- is the -- the scope of this section which...
Right. This is -- That is what is -- As you've laid it out, this is why the representation is being provided. And what I'm asking you is --
I believe that this -- that this section, whether in civil or criminal matters, would include investigations.
Are you giving me your personal opinion or is that a --
And, you know, the last time your questions arose -- You know, you 431 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 were taking issue with the opinion that whether this section is limited strictly to civil claims, as opposed to civil or criminal.
And, you know, I gave my opinion then, that it applies to both civil and criminal. If City Council had wanted to limit it to civil, they would have, like the way the General Assembly did with respect to similar state statutes.
But again, when the language reads "made against them," --
-- how does that apply -- how does that apply to the present situation? What claims have been made against any of these individuals?
If somebody said, you know, employee so and so or Council person so and so had -- has wronged me in some way, and they haven't filed a suit or they 432 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 haven't filed an EEO claim, at that point they're still -- there's still potential litigation or there's a potential investigation, and I would represent you, even though you haven't had a claim filed against you.
But it's your belief that that's within the meaning of this particular section?
I believe that investigations are within that scope, yes, civil or criminal.
Okay. But there is... But the word "investigation" is not used in the section, correct?
Right. And if... But I'm sure that it -- that -- that it is -- that it is part -- Any claim is potentially -- is related to any potential liability action, cause of action, any and all claims made against them whatsoever.
Okay. I do appreciate your time. I look forward to the information. And thank you very much.
Thanks, gentlemen. Thank you for your patience. Since we have no other witnesses, this Committee will stand in recess until Monday, May the 24th, at 10 a.m. (Hearing concluded at 8:30 p.m.) 434 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on May 18, 2004, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)