Exhibit A

FOR THE YEAR 199 FORM 200

ANNUAL STATEM:ENT OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FOR

THE COUNTY OF MADISON

I hereby submit the following Disclosure Statement, under oath, listing the assets and liabilities and sources of income of myself, my spouse and my unemancipated children with respect to entities doing business of any kind with the County of Madison.

Date of Statement: ---""3-,-,,/2=3,,-=19,,-,,,9~ _

For the year ending: __ ---.::1=2:.::..:/3"'-'1""'-1:::;_9~8 __

A) General Information:

Nrune: __ ~~S=.~J=O=HN~C=~~~A}IT.E===- ~ __

Address:

Telephone: 315/366-22030R_--------------

Title: (The County or Board title that makes you subject to Local Law #6 Of 1990 Financial Disclosure)

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Occupation: ATTORNEY

Marital Status:

Name of Spouse:

B) List any office, trusteeship. directorship or position of any nature, whether compensated

or uncompensated, held by you or your spouse, with any proprietorship. partnership, corporation or other organization, which at present or during the prior twelve (12) months, does business with the County of Madison. (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

1

2) TREASURER NYS COUNTY ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION (SIC)

Page 2

Form 200 continued

C) List any occupation, trade, business or profession presently engaged in by you or your

spouse (presently or during the prior twelve (12) months) which does business or has any matter pending with or is licensed or regulated by a County Agency or Department, and list such County Agency or Department: (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

ATTORNEY: KILEY LAW FIRM (SJC)

See Addendum

D) List all sources of income received by you, your spouse or unemanipated children from

entities doing business with the County of Madison at present or during the prior twelve (12) months' period or which you anticipate will engage in business with the County in the future:

1) All compensated continuing employment of whatever nature with an entity doing

business with the County of Madison: (Ifnone, write "none" on first line.)

See Addendum

2) All directorships or other fiduciary positions for which compensation has or will

be paid by an entity doing business with the County of Madison: (If none, write "none" on first line.)

None

j

3) All contractual arrangements producing or expected to produce income from

entities doing business with the County of Madison: (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

See Addendum

Page 3

Form 200 continued

E) List the name and address of any proprietorship, partnership or corporation doing

business with the County of Madison, or any instrumentality thereof in which you, your spouse or your unemancipated children presently have or have had in the prior twelvefl Z) months, an interest of five (5%) percent or more: (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

Company name:

Address:

See Addendum

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I, the undersigned, being duly sworn, hereby state that I have./personally completed the

above Disclosure Statement, and. that such DiSclO:::;l ce

, / j

( )

"'---._- ./

~,----.---

Sworn to before me

tbis~3 day o0'\~s(_ ........ _ • 199~

Notary Public

SUSAN 1. FRft.NK Rel'l- .No. 4874~72

Notary Public St;;!te 0, New York ·Apoainted in Madison Coun'q ", h "'My cOmmissIon Expires Or.t. 2-, "'L.O .. 'O

ADDENDUM

1998 FORM 200

S. JOHN CAMPANIE

I am Director of the Kiley Law Firm and own in excess of 5% of the stock thereof. A principal of the firm, John A. Patane, represents the Madison County Revolving Loan Fund. An associate of the firm, Tina M. Wayland-Smith serves as Assistant County Attorney.

.The Kiley Law Firm employs twelve attorneys and represents literally hundreds of clients. No doubt, certain of these clients do business with the County, and the Kiley Law Firm derives income from the representation of these clients.

It is not reasonably possible for me to be cognizant of the firm's client's relationship to the County, nor is it ethical for me to obtain and provide a comprehensive list of all of the law firrns clients to be appended to this disclosure=the mere disclosure of representation itself being potentially an unethical breach of client confidence.

It has been and will continue to be my practice to disclose all known conflicts or potential conflicts in accordance with § 3{c) of Local Law #6 of 1990.

Lastly, there is a proposal pending that for 1999 may result in additional compensation for extraordinary time commitments in defense of the Oneida Indian Land Claim, to be paid by New York State.

DATED: March 23, 1999

FORM 100

COUNTY OF MADISON

CODE OF ETIDCS REVIEW FORM

NAlVIE:

s. JOHN CAMP ANIE

ADDRESS:

-

~ . ~.

- _" -~~

TITLE:

(The County or Board title that makes you subject to Local Law #6 of 1990 Financial Disclosure)

COUNTY ATTORNEY

DATE OF APPOINTMENT TO THE ABOVE :

MAY 1987

I, the undersigned, hereby attest that I have reviewed the Local Law providing for the filing of Financial Disclosure Statements by certain County officials and employees and the Code of Ethics. I further attest that I understand the provisions of such Code of Ethics and, to the best of my knowledge, I am not in violation of any of its prec.!~pts or ~uirements.

i" 1 /f 1/ i h / l

"~oj ~i"17J~' .. ,;. __ rt 1//

.,/iJ/ :'. .

.... ',/ ji

-,"':

L

Sworn to before me this ct.3day of""\c;~<: ... ~ 1999

~_j__~~",\\~. '~~~0 Notary Public

SUSAN I. FRANK R;!g.No.4374S72

Nolai)' Public, Stat<: of New Vorl<.

Appointed in Mad.lson County '"

iViy Comrnission Exp!res Oct. ').7. ~j)Qj)

ExhibitB

FOR THE YEAR~' \9'1 '1 FORM 200

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FOR

THE COUNTY OF lVlADISON

I hereby submit the following Disclosure Statement, under oath, listing the assets and liabilities and sources of income of myself, my spouse and my unemancipated children

with respect to entities~~.~.~:n~ business of any kind with the ~ounty of Madison.

Date ofStatement:-:/J/tJi? For the year ending: 12/31/99

A) General Information:

Nmne: ~S~.~J=O=HN~C=AMP~~A}ITE===_ __

Address:

Telephone: 315/366-2203 _--------------

Title: (The County or Board title that makes you subject to Local Law #6 Of 1990 Financial Disclosure)

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Occupation: ATTORNEY

Marital Status: _----------------------

Name of Spouse:

Occupation of Spouse:

B) List any office, trusteeship, directorship or position of any nature, whether compensated

or uncompensated, held by you or your spouse, with any proprietorship, partnership, corporation or other organization, which at present or during the prior twelve (12) months, does business with the County of Madison. (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

2) TREASURER. NYS COUNTY ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION (SJC)

Page 2

Form 200 continued

C) List any occupation, trade, business or profession presently engaged in by you or your

spouse (presently or during the prior twelve (12) months) which does business or has any matter pending with or is licensed or regulated by a County Agency or Department, and list such County Agency or Department: (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

ATTORNEY: KILEY LAW FIRM (SJC)

See Addendum

D) List all sources of income received by you, your spouse or unemanipated children from

entities doing business with the County of Madison at present or during the prior twelve (12) months' period or which you anticipate will engage in business with the County in the future:

1) All compensated continuing employment of whatever nature with an entity doing

business with the County of Madison: (If none, writet'none" on first line.)

See Addendum

2) All directorships or other fiduciary positions for which compensation has or will

be paid by an entity doing business with the County of Madison: (Ifnone, write "none" on first line.)

None

3) All contractual arrangements producing or expected to produce income from

entities doing business with the County of Madison: (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

See Addendum

Page 3

F OIm 200 continued

E) List the name and address of any proprietorship, partnership or corporation doing

business with the County of Madison, or any instrumentality thereof in which you, your spouse or your unemancipated children presently have or have had in the prior twelve (12) months, an interest offive (5%) percent or more: (If none, please write "none" on first line.)

Company name:

Address:

See Addendum

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I, the undersigned, being duly sworn, hereby state that I have personally completed the above Disclosure Statement, and that such Disclosure Stateme~tslrue r complete.

~--. '/ 11 ii'

/--/1> Ij

/" j' f ~

/ ... ....- ; / -j"

-: )/ I/! L------~-----··-··

..r~ Ii ~ ,. ~

/ / - \

~

ADDENDUM

2000 FORM 200

S. JOHN CAMPANIE

I am Director of the Kiley Law Firm and own in excess of 5% of the stock thereof. A principal of the firm, John A. Patane, represents the Madison County Revolving Loan Fund. An associate of the firm, Tina M. Wayland-Smith serves as Assistant County Attorney.

The Kiley Law Firm employs ten attorneys and represents literally hundreds of clients. No doubt, certain of these clients do business with the County, and the Kiley Law Firm derives income from the representation of these clients.

It is not reasonably possible for me to be cognizant of the firm's client's relationship to the County, nor is it ethical for me to obtain and provide a comprehensive list of all of the law firm's clients to be appended to this disclosure--the mere disclosure of representation itself being potentially an unethical breach of client confidence.

It has been and will continue to be my practice to disclose all known conflicts or potential conflicts in accordance with §3(c) of Local Law #6 of 1990.

Lastly, in connection with the extraordinary time commitments in defense of the Oneida Indian Land Claim, and pursuant to discussions by and among New York State, Nixon Peabody LLP and the Counties, bills have been submitted by the Kiley Law Firm PC to Nixon Peabody LLP and in turn by Nixon Peabody LLP to the State of New York, pursuant to the understanding that as part of its contract with New York State to defend the Counties, such billings will be paid by New York State. The final amount to be paid by New York State is still a matter of negotiation.

DATED:

r ,2000

COUNTY OF MADISON

CODE OF ETIDCS REVIEW FORM

FORM 100

NAME:

S. JOHN CAMP ANIE

ADDRESS:

TITLE:

(The County or Board title that makes you subject to Local Law #6 of 1990 Financial Disclosure)

COUNTY ATTORNEY

DATE OF APPOJNTMENT TO THE ABOVE :

MAY 1987

I, the undersigned, hereby attest that I have reviewed the Local Law providing for the filing of Financial Disclosure Statements by certain County officials and employees and the Code of Ethics. I further attest that I understand the provisions oysJ.ch Code of Ethics and, to the best of my knowledge, I am not in violation of any of its prl~1.reiuirements.

~~--l /1 L

~/// III \ -----

( / \J \

-. j

-... ... ~..._

-~

------

ExhibitC

:~ORTH PEARL STREET· 4TH FLOOR· ALBANY, NY 12207 • PH. 518.434.0600 • FAX 518.434.0665

October 25,2010

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Honorable Thomas P. DiNapoli New York State Comptroller 110 State Street

Albany, NY 12236

Re: Misuse of State Funds by County Attorney S. John Campanie

Dear Mr. Comptroller:

This Firm, on behalf of our clients, Steven Mahler and Daniel Garrow, writes with regard to past and ongoing misuse of State funds to pay S. John Campanie to represent Madison County in matters involving the Oneida Nation of New York, and concerning certain other misuse of state and county funds. We request that your office investigate, stop the misuse of state and county funds, and recoup the funds paid to date.

Mr. Campanie is the County Attorney for Madison County. The Board of Supervisors appointed Mr. Campanie as County Attorney and fixed his salary. Mr. Campanie, however, has arranged to receive substantial additional, extra-salary compensation. He has done so by sharing in the State's payments to Nixon Peabody LLP, a large private law firm that the State has paid to represent Madison County in defense of the Oneida land claim. Mr. Campanie's receipt of State funds for work within the scope of his duties as County Attorney has been and is illegal.

First, as County Attorney, Mr. Campanie is prohibited by County Law § 201 and Public Officers Law § 67 from receiving additional compensation for representing Madison County. Section 201 provides that his salary "shall be in lieu of all fees," and section 67 provides that he "shall not charge or receive a greater fee or reward" than his salary. Under these statutes, any extra compensation that might be paid in violation of the statutes "belong]s] to the county," and the State can seek treble damages.

Second, Mr. Campanie's receipt of extra compensation involves conflicts of interest. As County Attorney, he decided or helped to decide who would represent Madison County in disputes with the Oneida Nation, and he selected himself and the Nixon Peabody firm. County Attorney Campanie had a conflict of interest when he selected private attorney Campanie to represent the County. Moreover, Mr. Campanie then proceeded to bill through the Nixon Peabody firm and then to receive payment through the firm. Mr. Campanie thus had a prohibited interest in Nixon Peabody's contract to represent Madison County. General Municipal Law § 801 (prohibiting such interests in county contracts).

WWW.BSFlLP;COM

i

! B 0 I E S. S CHI L L E R & F L "E X N E R L L P

!

l,e"dble Thomas P. DiNapoli Page 2

Third, Mr. Campanie misrepresented the nature of his work. In annual ethics disclosures dating back to 1998, Mr. Campanie submitted a form stating that the work for which he received additional, extra-salary compensation was for the "defense of the Oneida Indian Land Claim. 11 But, in fact, we believe that Mr. Campanie (and Nixon Peabody) have billed for a substantial amount of work other than the Oneida land claim, including for tax litigation, administrative proceedings involving a trust land application, trust land litigation, lobbying, and other matters not involving the Oneida land claim cases.

Fourth, the State was not authorized to pay Mr. Campanie or Nixon Peabody for most of their work representing Madison County. State Law § 10 authorized State payments only for their work on the Oneida land claim litigation,and then only for a part of that work. Of the more than $12 million the State has paid to Nixon Peabody and Mr. Campanie, it appears that most of it has been for work for which State Law § 10 does not authorize payment. such as the tax and trust litigation mentioned above. Any effort by Mr. Campanie and Nixon Peabody to characterize their work as work in defense of the Oneida land claim would have been to facilitate otherwise unauthorized receipt of State's funds.

Fifth, in addition to the State payments, Mr. Campanie has received from Madison County lump sum expense reimbursements, even including' for expenses of his private law office. Those payments violate County Law § 203, which forbids lump sum expense reimbursement, and, so far as they are for expenses of his private law office, also violate the prohibition on additional, extra-salary compensation.

Important public interests are involved here. The public is rightly concerned that more than $12 million in state funds not be spent improperly, particularly in tliese economically difficult times. The public is rightly concerned that public officers, like County Attorneys, not use their jobs to enrich themselves. And the public is rightly concerned that public officers, like County Attorneys, conduct the public's business, including litigation, free of the compromise produced by conflicting self-interest.

Mr. Campanie put himself in the position of supervising Nixon Peabody's legal work for Madison County. That supervision involved the quality of the work and the soundness of the strategies followed. Yet Mr. Campanie is paid through Nixon Peabody, benefits personally from a continuation of all the litigation involved, and would suffer economically from its settlement. A County Attorney should consider county interests separately from his own in continuing to receive extra-salary compensation for continuing and not settling litigation. That Mr. Campanie has been receiving extra-salary compensation for at least twelve years, and will be doing it in the future unless stopped, provides a troubling explanation for Madison County's opposition to settlement of longstanding disputes with the Oneida Nation.

A. Factual Background

1. The Oneida Land Claim Litigation

It is unclear when the practice began, but for many years the State of New York paid private counsel to represent Madison County (and also Oneida County) in federal land claim

2

,

/'

!

BOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

f

fAable Thomas P. DiNapoli

Page 3

litigation brought by the Oneida Nation of New York to recover land and money from Madison County and Oneida County to certain land. That litigation began with case No. 70-CV-35, which was resolved by. entry of judgment and is no longer pending. See Oneida Indian Nation v, County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) (decision listing the counties' then-counsel at early stage of the Oneida land claim).

From the beginning, the State's payments have been made pursuant to State Law § 10, which authorizes the State to pay a county's lawyer "for the defense of any action or proceeding[] against" the county if the action or proceeding is "to recover lands" fromthe county. The courts

. have been clear that section 10 authorizes payment for legal work to prevent a plaintiff from recovering county lands, but does not authorize payment for legal work to protect a county from paying money damages based on a claim that the County does not own its lands. County 0/ Broome, 102 A.D.2d 266,270 (3d Dep't 1984), aff'd, 64 N.Y.2d,l051 (1985).

In 1974, the Oneidas filed a new land claim action against Madison County and Oneida County, No. 74-CV-187. New counsel from the Boston firm of Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar represented the counties in that case and in No. 70-CV-35, which was still pending at that time. The State of New York was also named as a defendant, but ultimately dismissed on immunity grounds. As to all of this, see Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 719 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1983), rev'd, 470 U.S. (1985).

In .1998 the United States intervened as a plaintiff on behalf of the Oneidas so that the State of New York, which has no immunity as against the claims of the federal government, could again be made a defendant. At about that time, two changes occurred.

2. The County Attorney's Decision to Bill through Nixon Peabody for Additional, Extra-Salary Compensation for County Representation

The first change in 1998 was that Madison County and Oneida County engaged Nixon Peabody to represent them in the land claim litigation, with the State agreeing to pay the bills, as . for counsel in earlier years. Payments by the State were made under at least the following contract numbers: C003088, CI02843, and CI02844. Total payments under the contracts over the past twelve years has exceeded $12 million, as shown in the spreadsheet that your office provided to me and that I have attached at Exhibit A. The representation and the billing continue.

The second change in 1998 was that Madison County Attorney John Campanie arranged to be paid additional, extra-salary compensation for representing the County in matters related to the Oneida land claim. Like all previous Madison County Attorneys, Mr. Campanie (who was first appointed in May 1987) had been restricted to the salary established for his office by the Board of Supervisors. Recent newspaper reports indicate, however, that an arrangement began in 1998 - apparently not previously publicly reported or reflected in any Board of Supervisors proceeding - whereby Mr. Campanie would bill through and be paid by Nixon Peabody from funds paid by the State of New York pursuant to Nixon Peabody's contracts such as those specified above in the previous paragraph.

3

i

/ BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

I

,L .. able Thomas P. DiNapoli

Page 4

The records we have obtained appear to indicate that Mr. Campanie was being paid a monthly, lump sum payment of$6,500, without regard to hours, for most of the time, but at other times, he submitted bills to Nixon Peabody for fees far in excess of that amount. We believe that he has received over $800,000 through Nixon Peabody to date.

3. Recent FOIL Disclosures

Through a FOIL request, we recently obtained the ethics disclosure forms attached to this letter at Exhibit B. The forms, which we do not believe were ever publicly revealed, provide a roadmap explaining how Mr. Campanie's additional, extra-salary compensation was structured.

In the first report, which was for 1998, Mr. Campanie recorded the following description of his plan to received additional, extra-salary compensation:

Lastly, there is a proposal pending that for 1999 may result in additional compensation for extraordinary time commitments in defense of the Oneida Indian Land Claim, to be paid by New York State. (Emphasis added).

The reference to "additional compensation" was to payments Mr. Campanie expected to receive over and above his County Attorney salary fixed by the Board of Supervisors. The reference to the Oneida land claim defined the extent of the work for which additional compensation would be sought. There was no explanation why an extraordinary time commitment was required, or why the work would not be duplicative and unnecessary, given the fact that Nixon Peabody would be representing Madison County - and given the fact that the Attorney General was in the case, along with the large law firm of White & Case, acting as outside counsel to the State, advancing every argument that Madison County advanced. Mr. Campanie never entered an appearance for Madison County in either of the land claim cases, No. 70-CV - 35 or No. 7 4-CV - 187. In light of the abundance of lawyers in those cases, the conclusion has to be that the availability of extraordinary additional compensation produced the extraordinary time investment predicted by the County Attorney on the 1998 ethics form, and not the other way around.

For each of the following years (although there is no report for 2009), Mr. Campanie phrased his ethics disclosure form to avoid the use of the "additional compensation" term.that had been included in the report for 1998. See Exhibit B. For 1999, for example, Mr. Campanie, presumably then aware of the statutory prohibition on additional compensation, wrote the following:

Lastly, in connection with the extraordinary time commitments in defense of the Oneida Indian Land Claim, and pursuant to discussions by and among New York State, Nixon Peabody LLP and the Counties, bills have been submitted by the KileyLaw Finn PC [Mr. Campanie's then-firm] to Nixon Peabody LLP and in turn by Nixon, Peabody LLP to the State of New York, pursuant to the understanding that as part of its contract with New York State to defend the Counties, such billings would be paid by New York State. The final amount to be paid by New York State is still a matter of negotiation.

4

/

/"

/

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Lrable Thomas P. DiNapoli Page 5

The reference to "discussions" and to "the understanding" suggests that Mr. Campanie's arrangement was not documented in a written contract. The description also suggests that Mr. Campanie billed pursuant to Nixon Peabody's contract, although those contracts do not mention Mr. Campanie. Further, the Nixon Peabody bills to the State that we have seen merely list payments to Mr. Campanie as a lump sum disbursement by the Nixon Peabody firm, with no time records or details. See, for example, Exhibit C, attached at 17. Moreover, on at least one Nixon Peabody bill where the requested reimbursement to Mr. Campanie and the Oneida County Attorney was approximately $143,000, there is no reference to a payment to Mr. Campanie. That payment was merely lumped into a request for $165,691.49 in "Charges and Disbursements." See Exhibit D, attached at 19.1

4. Payments for Work on Non-Land Claim Matters

The spreadsheet reflecting State payments (Exhibit A) reveals that Nixon Peabody and .

Mr. Campanie have billed and received payment for work on matters outside of the two Oneida or other land claim cases.' The level of payments - which exceed a total of $12 million - reveals that non-land claims work was included in the bills because so much work could not have been done on just the land claim litigation.

Further, no land claim work has been needed since argument on June 3, 2008 in the Second Circuit on an appeal from a District Court order partially granting and partially denying the State and the Counties' motion for partial judgment. Yet the spreadsheet at Exhibit A shows that bills were submitted to and paid by the State for the rest of 2008, all of2009, and continuing into 2010. Those bills almost certainly were for non-land claim work involving, among other things, tax litigation against Madison County and Oneida County and trust litigation that the Counties chose to file against the Oneidas. See Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County, 401 F. Supp. 2d 219 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (the tax litigation); State v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32497, No. 08-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (the trust litigation). The spreadsheet at Exhibit A represented to the State that all the bills and the payments on them to relate "Indian Land Claim Section 10 Defense. II

Finally, even as to work on the land litigation, the spreadsheet reflecting State payments (Exhibit A) shows that Mr. Campanie and Nixon Peabody billed the State for work after the litigation was no longer about recovery of lands from the Counties, the only circumstance that justified payment under State Law § 10, the statute under which they were sought and under which they were made. Section 10 authorized only payment for a legal defense against claims for recovery of the Counties' lands. In June 2005, the Second Circuit held that Indian tribes in New York could not sue to recover lands long-ago sold to the State and obtained by its counties

The bill from the Oneida County Attorney was not produced pursuant to our FOIL requests, but Mr.

Campariie's bill for the month of August 1999 amounted to $79,166.54. See Exhibit E, attached. Disbursements incurred by Nixon Peabody, other than the Oneida and Madison County attorneys' fees, amounted to $22,073.94, as reflected on page 18 of the Nixon Peabody bill. We deduce, therefore, that the total requested by both county attorneys was approximately $143,000.

2

Nixon Peabody was apparently retained on two other land claim cases, 74-CV-187 (the "Abe Williams" case) and 86-CV-1140 (the Stockbridge land claim case).

5

/ BOIES, SCHILLER & FLE"XNER LLP

~{able Thomas P. DiNapoli

Page 6

or by others. Cayuga v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005). Madison County was, therefore, no longer exposed to a claim for recovery of its lands by the Oneidas. Yet for the four or more years Mr. Campanie and Nixon Peabody continued to bill the State for all the work they did, on land claim matters that did not involve any claim against the Counties for recovery of county lands and, of course, also on matters involving trust, tax and other non-land claim disputes.

5. Lump Sum Expense Payment to County Attorney Campanie

Although County Law § 203 forbids "lump sum" reimbursements "in lieu of actual and necessary disbursements" involving itemized expenses, Madison County has paid Mr. Campanie on one or more occasions a lump sum $500 reimbursement for such things as having a library, computers, telephones and staff in his private law office, located outside of Madison County, from which he sometimes does Madison County Attorney work as a convenience to himself. See Exhibit F (resolution making the lump sum award). Mr. Campanie, of course, would maintain his private law library and email-capable computers even if he were not also the County Attorney and even if he chose to do all of his County Attorney work at the public office that Madison County funds for Mr. Campanie at the County Office Building. For that reason, the payment would be illegal as not for a reimbursable expense even if it were not made in a lump sum and not for specific itemized expenses.

B. County Attorney Campanie May Not Be Paid on the Side

for Representing Madison County.

As County Attorney, it is Mr. Campanie's job to represent Madison County in all of its legal matters; any legal representation that he provides the County falls within his duties. This is true as a matter oflogic and also under the terms of the relevant statute. County Law § 501(1) provides that the County Attorney "shall ... defend all civil actions or proceedings brought by or against the county." And County Law § 501(3) requires that Mr. Campanie "shall perform such additional and related duties as may be prescribed by law and directed by the board of supervisors. "

The compensation of a County Attorney is to be fixed by the County's Board of Supervisors in the form of a salary, and is not open to supplementation through side payments.

[E]ach board of supervisors shall fix the salary of all such officers paid from county funds, except the members of the judiciary. Such salary shall be in lieu of all fees, percentages, emoluments or other form of compensation payable for services rendered in the performance of the powers and duties of the office.

County Law § 201. Section 201 further stipulates that fees received by Mr. Campanie or any County Attorney "by virtue of his office from whatever source" are required to "be paid into the country treasury" because they "belong to the county." (Emphasis added). Under this provision of section 201, the funds Mr. Campanie has received are client property misappropriated to his or his law firm's bank accounts.

6

/

i

J J

I

Ltable Thomas P. DiNapoli Page 7

B 0 I E S,

SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

It has long been recognized that section 201 "requires that [a] county attorney be paid a salary in lieu of all other compensation and precludes him from receiving additional compensation on an hourly basis or otherwise for such services. II 1986 Op. S1. Compo No. 14 (county attorney could not receive compensation apart from his salary for legal services rendered to a County Sewer District); 1981 N.Y. Op, (Inf.) Att'y Gen 134 (Feb. 23, 1981) (Madison County could not pay additional compensation to District Attorney for taking on additional work); 1972 N.Y. Op. (Inf.) Att'y Gen. 267 (Dec. ~5, 1972) (Town Attorney could not receive additional compensation on a voucher basis); 1955 N.Y. Op. (lnf.) Att'y Gen. 123 (June 14, 1955) (mayor could not receive additional compensation for extra time spent on an unforeseen situation); see County of Broome v. Board of Educ., 65 Misc.2d 418,423 (Sup. Ct. Broome Co. 1971) ("it is clear that the County Attorney is entitled to his salary and expenses only, as paid by the county," and thus representation to Board of Education was not separately compensable); 1962 Op. St. Comp. No.' 311 (" A county attorney may not be paid extra compensation for services rendered in connection with a bond issue ... The salary of a public officer covers the performance of all of the duties of his office."); 1959 Op. S1. Compo No. 59-781 (county attorney may not be paid extra-salary compensation for services that fall within the scope of his duties); cf County Law § 205 (as to county employees, mirrors salary-only rule limitation that section 201 imposes on county officers).

Similar in effect to County Law § 201, Public Officers Law § 67 provides that persons, like county attorneys, whose compensation for a service is allowed by law, "shall not charge or receive a greater fee or reward, for that service, than is so allowed." See Thompson V. Hofstatter, 265 N.Y. 54 (1934) (§ 67 barred a county attorney from receiving extra pay from the county for litigation and other work, where he' already received a salary' from the county); County of Broome, 65 Misc.2d at 423 (§ 67 prohibits County Attorney from receiving compensation other than salary). Section 67 authorizes the State to seek treble damages for any funds received in violation of the statute. Willett v. Devoy, 170 A.D. 203, 204-05 (2d Dep't 1915); Hale V. McDermott, 78 Misc. 52 (2d Dep't 1912).

In sections 201 and 67, the Legislature anticipated and dealt with the obvious threat of

. conuption, and the unappealing incentives and conflicts of interest, that side payments to public officials can create. Those incentives and conflicts were on full display here, as County Attorney Campanie hired private lawyer Campanie to represent Madison County, thereby billing private attorneyrates for work that feU within his County Attorney salary and doing work that duplicated Nixon Peabody's work on behalf of the County; as he arranged to be paid through Nixon Peabody, even though it was his duty to supervise that firm's work on behalf of Madison County; and as he struggled against the possibility of settling Oneida litigation and thereby' cutting of the extra income stream he has accessed for a dozen years.

In Thompson v. Hofttatter, cited above, the New York Court of Appeals effectively addressed Mr. Campanie's defense of "extraordinary time commitments" and rejected it in forceful terms that bear specific mention. The County Attorney for Rockland County received additional compensation for legal work perceived as more time-consuming than had been anticipated when his salary was fixed. Although the Board of Supervisors voted to approve some of the additional compensation, and other of it was based on "discussions" with the Board

7

J

i !

! B 0 IE S.

Idrable Thomas P. DiNapoli Page 8

SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

or its members, the Court rejected the possibility of additional compensation for extra work that otherwise fell within the County Attorney's general duty to do the County's legal work, no matter how much tmforeseen work there might prove to be:

The question is squarely presented whether a County Attorney can thus be paid additional compensation over and above his salary for ordinary legal attorney work because the salary fixed is not an adequate compensation.

The county of Rockland was not obliged to appoint a County Attorney, but, when it did appoint Mr. Hofstatter, he became a public official whose salary, as fixed by the Board of Supervisors, covered the usual, ordinary attorney work done for a county, unless it was so special and extraordinary as to be taken out of the duties prescribed by the Board of Supervisors in their local law for which the salary was to be paid. That Mr. Hofstatter performed very valuable legal services which were worth all the extra compensation he received is not questioned, yet the provisions of the Constitution and of the County Law are quite clear and must be obeyed.

Previous decisions in this court have given this warning to county officials. In fact it has been said, if there be any doubt as to the legality of any payment, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public. We do not have to go so far in this case because in our judgment there is no doubt of the illegality of these additional payments.

His salary was to be paid him for all legal services, or at least the services usually rendered by an attorney, and this is the position we must take in the absence of any resolution or local law prescribing the duties of the County Attorney. These resolutions, therefore, were merely an attempt to add to the salary extra and additional compensation.

We have not overlooked many of the equities in the defendant's favor: the work performed by him, the reasonableness of his charge and the informal methods or inducements leading up to and the receipt of compensation. But we have nothing to do with equities and informalities. The public have a right to be heard on these matters. They too have claims to be considered and these are found in the plain provisions of the Constitution and the laws to which we have called attention and which prohibit the public officer from accepting or receiving additional compensation, even though the work for which he is paid by a salary becomes unexpectedly onerous.

8

j i

,I BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

b.:Jrable Thomas P. DiNapoli

Page 9

The Board of Supervisors, in fixing the salary which paid for these services, could not say that he would also in future get additional compensation according totheir discretion and judgment. This power has been taken away from them. The salary of a public official cannot be left in this indefinite and uncertain way. When we pause to think of the effect of such power we see at once that the constitutional limitations and the provisions of the Public Officers Law and the County Law could be easily nullified. A salary could be given for indefinite legal services and then extra compensation without limitation allowed for the ordinary work of such an official by simply saying in advance that it was to be done. The law does not permit any such evasion; the fixing of a salary would have no meaning.

As before stated, the courts have heretofore spoken upon these matters and what we have here written is simply a reiteration of that law which has been settled and determined in other cases. The whole matter has been well summed up by Judge Dillon in his work on Municipal Corporations (Vol. 1 [5th ed.], § 426), as follows: "Extra Compensation. -- It is a well-settled rule that a person accepting a public office, with a fixed salary, is bound to perform the duties of the office for the salary. He cannot legally claim additional compensation for the discharge of

. these duties, even though the salary may be a very inadequate remuneration for the services. Nor does it alter the case that by subsequent statutes or ordinances his duties within the scope of the charter powers pertaining to the office are increased and not his salary. Whenever he considers the compensation inadequate, he is at liberty to resign. The rule is of importance to the public. To allow changes and additions in the duties properly belonging or which may properly be attached to an office to lay the foundation for extra compensation, would introduce intolerable mischief. The rule, too, should be rigidly enforced."

265 N.Y. at 63-66 (citations omitted; emphasis in original).

C. County Attorney Campanie May Not Have an Interest in Nixon Peabody's Contract to Represent Madison County.

General Municipal Law § 801 prohibits Mr. Campanie from having an interest in Madison County's contract with Nixon Peabody for legal representation. See 2000 Op. St. Compo 8; 1988 Op. St. Compo 133. That the firm may have a contract with the State by which the State is a third-party fee payer does not change the fact that Madison County is the client and the beneficiary of the contract. Moreover, Madison County has an oral or written contract with Nixon Peabody through which the retention of the firm as the County's lawyers was established. For Mr. Campanie to be paid as if he were a part of the Nixon Peabody firm or covered by its contracts gives him a prohibited interest in County contracts. A County Attorney should not be paid additional compensation by or through the law firm whose work he has ~ duty to supervise and whose recommendations as to settlement ought to receive his consideration unaffected by self-interest as to future payments for continuing to work alongside the outside law firm.

9

/

I

I BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

!

[orable Thomas P. DiNapoli Page 10

D. County Attorney Campanie and Nixon Peabody May Have Represented Non-Land Claim Work as Land Claim Work, and, in Any Event, State Law Did Not Authorize the Payments.

Even ignoring the prohibitions on the payment of additional compensation to Mr.

Campanie and on his interest in Madison County's contracts with Nixon Peabody, state law authorized state payments for the County's legal work only to the extent permitted by State Law § 10. That means that payments were authorized only for representing Madison County in the Oneida land claim with respect to any claim to recover Countylands. Section 10 provides:

The governor shall, at the expense of the state, employ counsel and provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, instituted against the state, or against any person deriving title therefrom, to recover lands within the state, under pretence of any claim inconsistent with its sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Section 10 may, at one time, have authorized payment to outside counsel because the Oneidas' claim included, for a time, a claim to evict Madison County and Oneida County from certain lands that they own. In County of Broome, 102 A.D.2d 266,270 (3d Dep't 1984), affd, 64 N.Y.2d 1051 (1985), the Court held that the State must pay private counsel under section 10 to defend a county against an Indian land claim seeking to evict the county from land it owns.

It now appears, however, that the State's indemnity of county legal fees and expenses has, for some time, not been restricted to the payments approved in County of Broome - i.e., for the defense of an eviction claim in an Indian land claim case. Payments apparently have extended to the defense of another type of claim, a claim for rental damages, that County of Broome held are not covered by section 10. In County of Broome, the county sought not only state indemnity for its fees to defend against an eviction claim, hut also state indemnity to defend against a claim for rental damages for the county's trespass. Even though the trespass claim was made in the same complaint that included the eviction claim and applied to the same land, the Court reasoned that the trespass damages claim was not an action "to recover lands, II as required by section 10, and thus decided that the defense of it could not be placed on the State.

Certainly the trust and tax litigation for which Mr. Campanie and Nixon Peabody have billed the State does not fall within section 10. None of that involved defense ofan effort to sue Madison County to recover county land; indeed, Madison County is the plaintiff, not the defendant, in the trust litigation, in which there is no claim of any kind against the County. Even the legal work performed by Nixon Peabody. and Mr. Campanie in 'the land claim litigation, at least after June 2005, could not have included defense of a claim to recover county land, because the Second Circuit held in its Cayuga decision that such a claim cannot he made. Finally, the legal work for which the State has been charged may have ranged well beyond work on litigation, extending to lobbying in Albany and in Washington, D.C. and to press and public relations work.

Thus, apart from the question of additional compensation and prohibited interests in county contracts, much of the State payments at issue here simply were not authorized because

10

I

B 0 I E S, S CHI L L E R & F LEX N E R L L P

-orable Thomas P. DiNapoli Page 11

the kind of legal work that was done did not qualify under section 10. To the extent, as the State's records indicate, the State was erroneously led to believe that all bills submitted to the State were for qualifying land claim work, that simply presents an additional reason for the State to take appropriate actions now.

E. Madison County's Lump Sum Expense Payments to County Attorney Campanie Are Illegal;

Exhibit F contains the Madison County Board of Supervisors resolution approving a lump sum payment of $500 to Mr. Campanie to cover certain expenses of his private law office. The County Attorney has an office in the County Building. The resolution indicates that Mr. Campanie prefers to conduct public business from his private law office - which is not even located in Madison County.

The lump sum payment violated County Law § 203, which prohibits lump sum expense reimbursements.

That illegality is compounded by the fact that $500 payment covers items that Mr.

Campanie would have to purchase whether or not he were County Attorney, such as law books, computers and staff who answer telephone calls. Such payments for expenses not directly incurred in doing work as the County Attorney is considered prohibited additional compensation to the County Attorney. Thompson v. Hofttatter, 265 N.Y. at 66-69 (County Attorney could be paid actual expenses, but could not be paid for law books at private law office, for office rent or for a proportion of salary of law office staff).

F. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, our clients request that your office investigate this matter, stop the misuse of State and County funds, and recoup funds illegally paid out to date to County Attorney Campanie and Nixon Peabody.

Sincerel , j:l? v#

.Carp~

GFC:spl

S:\wpdata\7515002\DiNapoIi Itr IO.7.10.doc

11

ExhibitD

EXHIBIT "D"

Arlene Welkely Contract Administrator CIO State Department of

Economic Development 30 South Pearl Street Albany, NY 12245

III

..

N1XON PEABODY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT lAW

Clinton Square

Post Office Box lOS1 ROt:ilester, New York \ 4 603-' 051 (7161 263·' 000

F~; (71 6) 263-1600

Direct ~ial: (716} 263-1609 E-Mail: &rwitmer@oQ;onpeabody.com

September 15, 1999

RE: Statement for Legal Services Contract No. C003088

Dear Ms, Welkley:

Enclosed please find our statement for legal services rendered and charges and disbursements recorded through August 31, 1999 regarding our representation of Madison County, et al. Based on my personal interaction with them, and a separate review of their time records, I certify that Mr. Campanie and Mr. Haggas have each devoted mote than an average of ten hours per week on this matter, If you have any questions regarding this bill, please COntact me.

GRWlbb Enclosure

cc; Patrick L. Kehoe S. John Campanie Stephen Haggas

Sincerely,

b.

G. Robert Witmer, Jr.

At .... ~. IolY· BOSTON. M ..... BUfF ... ~O. NY • CiARDEN CI'I'Y. "''I' . I1ARiFOIlI), CT • MAtiCI-IUTli~, IofH • Mtw YOK~. NY· PJtOVlDUO'CE. It! • R.OOle5lU. NY • W.u~L"'C;lQtI. DC

FEDERAL 1.D. NO. 16--0764120

Nixon Peabody LLP

Attomevs at I..iIw CLINTON SQUARE P.O. 8(]X 1051 ItOCHESY'ER, NY 1.<1603 (116) Z63-100Q Fax:- (716) 2S3-1600

September 15, 1999

MadIson County, et al,

clo State Department of Economic Develo~eDt Attn: Comptroller of the State of New York One Commerce Plaza

Albany, NY 12245

Invoice No. 1893481 Account: 200640 Terms: Net 30

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED through August 31, 1999, including:

MA'l'TER NO. nOOOOl - GENERAL

For Professional Fees:

~ Timekeeper

071'21/99 A. Luciano

Hml!! Description of Services 4.50

08/02199

G. Winner

14.00

08/02199

D. Schraver

10.70

08f02/99

F. Hengerer

6.00

Dare Timekeee;er
08102/99 A. Luciano
08/02199 A. Luciano
08/02/99 s. StritzeL
08{O3/99 G. Witmer Hours Description of Services 0.10

2.50

2.80

13.00

0810'3/99 D. Schraver 9.60
08/03/99 F. Hengerer 3.50
08/03/99 A. Farley 1-80
08/03/99 A. Luciano 2.80
08103199 s. Stri~l 6.20
08/03/99 1. Garvin 2.00
08104199 G. Witmer 10.50 08/04199

D. Schraver

1O.S0

08/04/99

A. Luciano

0.40

08/04/99

S. Stritzel

1.20

08/05/99

G. Wi~er

10.00

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice # 1893481 Page 2

_.

Date 08/05199

Hours. Description of Services 11.00

Timekeeper D_ Schraver

08/05/99 F_ Hengerer

4.00

08/05199 A- Luciano

2.10

08t06/99 G- Witmer

08106199 G. Winner

0.10 9.50

08/06199 D. Schraver

6.50

08/06199 F. Hengerer

8.20

08106199 S. Stritzel

7.10

08/07/99 D. Schraver

1.10

08/07/99 F _ Hengerer

08109199 G. Witmer

5.00 1.10

08(09/99

D. Schraver

1.90

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 3

Date Timekeeger
08f09/99 D. Cook
08/09/99 F. Hengerer
08/10/99 G. Witmer
08/10199 G. Witmer
08/10199 D. Scbraver HOllrs Description of Services LOa

9.50 0.40

0.30

4.80

08/10/99 D. Cook

0.50

08/10/99 F. Hengerer

7.50

08/11/99 G. Wituler

4.00

08/11/99 D. Stbraver

5.00

08/11/99 F. Hengerer

6.00

08/12199 G. Witmer

12.10

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1&93481 Page 4

Date Timekee.!l,er

08112199 D. Schraver

Hours Description of Services 11.50

08/12199 F. Hengerer 11.50
08/12/99 S. Stritzel 0.10
08/13/99 G. Witmer 1.30
08113199 G. WitmeJ;" 1.00
08/13/99 G. Winner 1-50
08/13/99 D. Schraver 3.70 08/13/99 F. Hengerer 10.00
08/13/99 S. Stritzel 5.70
08/14/99 G. Witmer 2.S0
08/14/99 D. Schraver 1.50
08/16/99 G. Witmer 2.70
08/16/99 O. Wibner 1.10
-,
08/16/99 G. Witmer 1.00
08/16/99 G. Witmer 2.80 , -,

08'16/99

4.70

D. Schraver

Nixon Peabody LL?

Invoice #l893481 Page S

Date OSl16J99

Hours Descri~tion of Services 0.50

Timekeeper L. Dean

08/16/99 L. Dean 0.40

081 16199 F. Hengerer 9.50

08116/99 V. White 3.70

08116/99 S. Stritzel 5.20

08117/99 L. Galbraith 0.20

08/17/99 G. Witmer 12.80

08117/99 D. Schraver 11.50

08/17/99 F. Hengerer 10.50

08/17/99 S. Stritzel 4.50

08/18/99 L. Gal6taith 0.80

08/18199 L. Galbraith 1.80

08/18/99 G. Wibner 3.50

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 6

Date 08/18/99

Timekeeper O. Witmer

Houts Description of Services 6.50

08118199 D. Schraver

6.40

08/18199 R. Meserve

4.60

08/18199 F. Hengerer

08/18/99

08/19199

6.00

S. Stritzel

SAO

G. Witmer

15.80

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 7

............,

Date 08/19199

08119199

08/19199 08/19199 08/19/99

08120199

08120/99

08f20/99 08120/99 08120/99

08120199

08120199 08/20/99 08120199

Timekeeper D. Schraver

R. Meserve

L. Dean

F. Hengerer S. Stritzel

G. Winner

G. Witmer

G. Witmer G. Witmer D. Schraver

S. Widger

R. Meserve L. Dean

F. Henge{er

Homs Description of Services IS.80

3.40

0.60 3.90 7.20

1.60

3.00

0.50 1.50 6.80

0.90

0.80 0.80 2.50

Nixon Peabody tLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 8

Date 08120/99

Timekeeper V. White

Hours Description of Services 4.50

08/20/99 S. Stritzel

5.30

08123/99 D. Schraver

7.30

08123/99 V. White

3.20

08124/99 D. Schraver

.'

08125/99

-,

0812Sf99

,

.:: .

. :

08125/99

13.00

G. Witmer

5.00

D. Sehraver

3.30

V. White

0.30

Nil,on Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 9

-

Date 08/26/99

Hours Description of Services 13.20

Timekeeper G. Witmer

08126199 D. Schraver 13.50

08/27/99 G. Winner 1.70

08/27/99 G. Witmer 3.00

08121199 D. Schraver 5.90

08127199 S. Widger 0.10

08/27/99 M. Calvaruso 0.50

08128199 G. Witmer 3.50

08128/99 D. Schraver 0.30

08/30/99 G. Witmer 1.70

08130199 G. Witmer 1-30

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice # t 893481 Page 10

--

Timek~r

Hours Description of Services

08/30/99 G. Witmer 2.10

08130/99 G. Witme( 3.00

08/30/99 D. Scliraver 6.20

08130199 F. Hengerer 5.00

08/30199 S. Stritzel 0.70

08/31/99 G. Witmer 13.30

08/31199 D. Schraver 13.30

08131199 P. Hengerer 7.00

08/31/99 S. Stritzel 3.90

TOTAL HOURS:

584.00

NIxon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 11

TOTAL FEES:

$115,458.00

-
Nixon Peabody LLP
Invoice #l893481 Page 12
TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY

Timekeeper Rate Hours Fees
Partners
L. Galbraith 245.00 2JlO 686.00
G. Witmer 250.00 181.90 45,475.00
D. Schraver 2.45.00 185.BO 45,521.00
S. Widger 245.00 1.00 245.00
D. Cook 225.00 1.50 331.50
Partners Totals 373.00 92,Z64.50
Associates
A. Farley 145.00 L80 261.00
V. White 180.00· . 11.70 2,106.00
A. Luciano 90.00 13.00 1,170.00
S. Stritze\ 145.00 55.30 8,018.50
J, Garvin 125.00 2.00 250.00
.Associates Totals 83.80 11,805.50
Paralegals
F. Hengerer 90.00 115.60 10,404.00
R. Meserve 80.00 8.80 704.00
L. Dean 100.00 2.30 230.00
M. Calvaruso 100.00 0.50 50.00
Totals 127.20 11,388.00
Total AD Tbnekeepers: 584.00 $115,458-:00 Date 08/02/99

; j.

,

08/02/99- 08/02/99 08/0~/99 08/03/99 08103/99 08105199 08/05199 08/05199 08/05199 08f05J99 08/06/99

For Charges and Disbursements:

Descrjntion

Amount *5057.17 .

2.75

14.60 0.20 6.80 0.30 9.80 4.90 2.00 1.70 0.31

*83.41

_.

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 13

For Charges and DisbUl'Sements:
08/06/99 12.00
08/06/99 0.10
08/06/99 2.40
08/06/99 11.10
08/06/99 13.30
08/06/99 2.50
08106199 0.10
08/06199 0.50
08f06/99 0.'30
08f06f99 0.20
08/06199 0.10
08/06199 9.80
08/06/99 5.30
08/06199 1.30
08/06/99 0.70
08/06199 2.01
08/06199 0.25
08/06/99 0.25
08106/99 0.51
08106199 0.25
08106/99 3.28
08/06/99 1.76
08/06/99 2.43
08/rtll99 5.70
08/07/99 79.40
08107/99 0.50
08/09/99 7.50
08/09199 19.10
08/09/99 0.25
08/09/99 0.25
08/09/99 5.29
08f09199 0.51 .
O~/IO/99 "'68.00
08/10/99 *2.46
0'8/10/99 *5.60
08110199 8.00
08/10/99 2.00
08/10/99 *55.90
08/10/99 *55.00
08/10/99 0.62
08110199 0.25
08/10/99 0.25
08/10/99 0.25 --

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 14

c

For Charges and Disbursements:
08/10/99 1.26
08110199 9.06
08/10/99 0.64
08/10/99 0.16
08111199 1.00
08/11199 7.20
08/i1l99 . 0.51
08111/99 0.51
08111/99 13.35
08/11/99 12.59
08/11/99 0.51
08/11199 0.51
08111/99 0.25
08/11199 2.27
08111199 0.25
08/11199 0.25
08/11/99 0.25
08/11199 0.92
08/11/99 1.00
08/11/99 7.20
08112199 1.30
08112199 0.25
08/12/99 7.35
08/13199 16.00
08113199 *98.12
08f13J99 1.40
08113199 0.25
08/13/99 10.01
08113199 9.31
08/13199 2.77
08/13/99 0.31
08/13/99 0.76 ...
08/13/99 2.16
08/15/99 0.36
08/16/99 4.00
08/16199 24.00
08/16199 3.00
08/16/99 ."'100.15
08/16/99 *309.85
08/16199 13.00
08/16199 2.Z7
08/16199 1.76 . I

I I

I 1 j I

..

.

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 15

For Charges and Disbursements:
08116/99 0.31
08/16/99 1.23
08117199 2.27
08/17199 0.25
08/18/99 *188.68
08/18199 *30.40
08/18f99 88.35
08/18199 *7.1S
08/18/99 *5.50
08/18/99 "'29.21
08/18199 *3.00
08/18/99 0.20
08118199 3.00
08118/99 0.20
08118/99 0.10
08/18/99 5.20
08118199 3.00
08/18/99 6.20
08/18199 0.70
08/18/99 0.70
08118199 6.00
08/18/99 7.50
08/18/99 3.80
08/18/99 3.70
08/18/99 3.10
08/18/99 1.51
08f18199 0.25
08/18/99 0.25
08/18{99 0.25
08/18/99 0.31
08/18199 0.25
08118199 0.31
08/18/99 0.28
.. 08118199 0.25
08/18/99 0.31.
08118/99 0.31
08/Ul/99 1.85
08118199 0.31
08118199 0.25
08118/99 0.25
08118199 2:J:T -

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #189348 [ Page 16

For Charges and Disbursements;
08/18/99- 1.76
08118199 1.23
08/18/99 0.60
08118199 3.85
08/18199 0.76
08/18/99 0.60
08/18/99 0.60
08/18/99 0.25
08/18/99 20.00
08/19/99 20.00
08119199 12.00
08/19/99 6.00
08/19/99 0.20
08/19/99 0.30
08119/99 3.00
08119/99 0.60
08119/.99 1.23
08/20/99 5.00
08/20199 *78.99
08/20199 0.77
08120199· 0.28
08/20199 1.01
08120199 0.25
08120/99 0.51
08120'99 0.31
08/20/99 0.92
08120/99 0.31
08120f99 0.7.5
08120/99 0.31
08/20/99 0.36'
08/20/99 1.20
08/20/99 1.60
08120/99 lAO
.- 08121199 1.00
08121199 4.00
08121199 2.00
08123/99 24.00 08/23/99 08123/99 08J23/99

9.00 0.25 4.03

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 17

For Charges and Disbursements.
08123/99 0.76
08123/99 0.25
08123/99 O.SI
08123199 1.65
08/23199 1.40
08/23/99 0.92
08/23199 32.10
08/24/99 1.60
08/24/99 1.70
08/25199 *5955.40
08125(99 8.00
08125199 6.70
08125199 *5214.90
08125199 35.0Q
08125199 6.00
08125199 9.00
08(25199 10.40
08125199 0.62
08125199 1.54
08125199 2.01
08125199 Z.Ot
08125199 0.51
08125/99 0.25
08125199 0.88
OSn5/99 11.00
08/25/99 7.00
08126/99 *3546.54
08126/99 0.10
08127/99 18.00
08/27/99 *89.02
08121199 *89.02
08127/99 2.00
08J27/99 0.28
08127J99 0.25
08/27/99 0.90
08J27/99 15.96
08/21199 0.55
08/30/99 4.00
08130/99 1.20
0Sl30/99 2.00
08130/99 1.70
08/30199 8.80
08/30199 1.40
08/30/99 0.50 I

'.

- '.

For Charges and Disbursements:

08130/99 08130199 08f30f99 08130199 08{30199 08130/99 08/30199 08/30199 08/30/99 08/30/99 08130/99 08130/99 08/30/99 08130199 08/30199 08/30199 08/30199 08130199 08130199 08130199 08/30/99 08/30199 08/30199 08/30199 08/30/99 08130199 08130/99 08130/99 08131/99 08131/99 08131/99 08/31199

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 18

OAO

10.50 9.80 0.50 6.00 1.26 0.28 0.51 0.51 O.SL 0.51 2.01 0.31 0.31 0.31 1.85 0.51

11.09 0.51 0.82 1.10 0.51 5.54 0.25 4.28

13.00

7.00 10.00 12.00 12,00

1.60 S.lO

TOTAL CHARGES AND DISBURSEMEt;rS

$22.073.64

TOTAL FOR .MATl'ER -- GENERAL:

$131 ~531.64

'" receipts attached

Ni."(on Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 19

..

Total Time and CostS - . - - - . .

s $ $

115,458.00 165,691.49

Total Fees __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . . . • . . . . .

Total Charges and Disbursements . . . . . . . • . . . • • • • . . • . .

281,149.49

TOTAL FOR STATEMENT:

$281.149.49

" .

EXHIBIT "D"

Arlene Welkely Contract Administrator CIO State Department of

Economic Development 30 South Pearl Street Albany, NY 12245

118

..

NIXON PEABODY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Clinton Square

Post Offic:e Box 1051 Roc:hester, New York 14603·1 OS, (716) 263- 1 000

Fa;c: {716> 263· , 600 DlrectOiaJ: (716) 263-1609 E·Mail: grwitrner@nbmnpeabDdy.com

September 15, 1999

RE: Statement for Legal Services Contract No. C003088

Dear Ms. Welkley:

Enclosed please find our statement for legal services rendered and charges and disbursements recorded through August 31. 1999 regarding our representation of Madison County, et ai. Based on my personal interaction with them, and a separate review of their time records, I certify that Mr. Campanie and Mr. Haggas have each de-voted mote than an average of ten bours per week on this matter. If you have any questions regarding this bill. please contact me.

GRWlbb Enclosure

cc; Patrick L. Kehoe S. John Campanie Stephen Haggas

Sincerely,

b.

G. Robert Witmer, Jr.

1It8Ata'. '01'1' • DOSTON, MA. - BVFrl\~O. NY • G"'~DU' '.'/Y. I'IY • tiAlIlfORD. CT • M"'I'ICIiEST~K. NH • Ntw YORlt. 1'1 .... ~ROV.IlEHc:E. I!.I • ROc;tle:if£1l. IIY • WASHlIICfQII. oC

FEDERAL l.tl_ NO. 16-1)764120

Nixon Peabody LLP

Attorneys <:It Law CLINTON SQUARe P.O. SOX 1Q51 ftOCHeSTeR. NY 14603 (716) 263-100Q Fax; (716) 2SZ·1600

September 15, 1999

Madison County, et at.

clo State Department of Economic Development Ann: Comptroller of the State of New York One Commerce Plaza

Albany. NY 12245

Invoice No. 1893481 Account: 200640 Terms: Net 30

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED through August 31; 1999t including;

MA'ITER NO. UOOOOI - GENERAL

For Professional Fees.:

D_ate 07121/99

Timekeeper A. Luciano

Hours Descrietlon of Services 4.50

08/02199

G. Witmer

14.00

08/02/99

D. Schraver

10.70

Q8102199

F. Hengerer

6.00

...........

Date Timekeeger
08/02/99 A. Luciano
08'02/99 A. Luciano
08102/99 S. Strltzel
08103/99 G. Witmer Hours Description of Services 0.10

2.50

2.80

13.00

08/03199 D. Scbraver 9.60
08/03/99 F. Hengerer 3.50
08/03/99 A. Farley 1.80
08/03199 A. Luciano 2.80
08J03J99 S. Str;t:zel 6.20
08/03199 1. Garvin 2.00
08/04/99 G. Witmer 10.50 08/04/99

D. Sehraver

10.50

08/04/99

A. Luciano

0.40

08/04/99

S. Stritzel

1.20

08105/99

G. Witrtter

10.00

Nixon Peabody L.1...P

Invoice #1893481 Page 2

_.

~ 08/05199

Timekeeper D. Schraver

Hours Description of Services 11.00

08105/99 F. Hengerer

4.00

08/05199 A. Luciano

2.70

08106/99 G. Witmer

08106199 G. Witmer

0.10 9.50

08/06'199 D. Schraver

6.50

08/06199 F. Hengerer

8.20

08/06199 S. Stritzel

7.10

08/01199 D. Schraver

1.10

08/07/99 F. Bengerer

08/09199 G. Witmer

5.00 i.io

08f09/99

D. Schraver

1.90

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 3

Date Timekeel2er
08{O9/99 D. Cook
08/09/99 F. Hengerer
08/10/99 G. Witmer
08110'99 G. Witmer
08/10/99 D. Schraver Hours Description of Services 1.00

9.50 0.40

0.30

4.80

08110/99 D. Cook

0.50

08/10/99 F. Hengerer

7.50

08/11/99 G. Wiuner

4.00

08/11/99 D. Scbraver

5.00

08/11/99 F. Hengerer

6.00

08/12199 G. WiDner

12.10

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice # 1 ~93481 Page 4

Date Timekee~r

08112/99 D. Schraver

Hours Description of Services 11.50

08/12199 F. Hengerer 11.50
08112/99 S. Stritzel 0.10
08113/99 G. Witmer 1.30
08/13/99 G. Witmer 1.00
08113199 G. Witmer 1.50
08/13/99 D. Schraver 3.70 08/13/99 F. Hengerer 10.00
08113/99 s. Stritzel 5.70
08114/99 G. Witmer 2.50
08114/99 D. Schraver 1.50
08/16/99 G. Witmer 2.70
08/16199 O. Wibner 1.10
08116/99 G. Witmer 1.00
08/16/99 G. Witmer 2.80 . "

08116199

4.70

D. Schraver

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 5

Date 08/16199

Timekeeper L.Dean

Hours Description of Services 0.50

08/16/99 L. Dean 0.40

08116199 F. Hengerer 9.50

08116199 V. White 3.70

08116199 S. Strirzel 5.20

08/17/99 L. Galbraith 0.20

08117/99 G. Witmer 12.80

08117199 D. Schraver 11.50

08/17199 F. Hengerer 10.50

08111/99 S. Stritze[ 4.50

08/18/99 L. Gall:>raith 0.80

08/18/99 L. Galbraith 1.&0

08/18/99 G. Witmer 3.50

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 6

--=

Date 08/18/99

Timekeeg,er G. Witmer

Hrom. Description of Services 5.50

08/18/99 D. Schraver

6.40

08/18/99 R. Meserve

4.60

08/18/99 F. Hengerer

6.00

08/18/99

08/19/99

s. Stritzel

5.40

G. Witmer

15.80

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 7

-

Date 08/19199

08119/99

08/19/99 08/19199 08/19199

{)8/20/99

08120/99

08120199 08120199 03/20/99

OBf2QJ99

08120/99 08/20/99 08/20/99

Timekeeper D. Schraver

Hours Description of Services 15.80

R. Meserve

3.40

L. Dean

F. Hengerer S. Stritzel

0.60 3.90 7.20

G. Witmer

1.60

G. Witmer

3.00

G. Witmer G. Witmer D. Sehraver

0.50 1.50 6.80

S. Widger

0.90

R. Meserve L.Dean

P. Benge{er

0.80 0.80 2.50

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 8

-

Date 08/20/99

08/20/99

08123199

08123/99

08124/99

"

08125/99

"

08125199

J

.~

.;

,"

08125/99

Timekeeper V. White

HOUTS Description of Services 4.50

S, Stritzel

5.30

D. Schraver

7.30

V, White

3.20

D. Scbraver

13.00

G. Winner

5.00

D. Scbravet'

3.30

v. White

0.30

Nixon Peabody l.LP

Invoice #1893481 Page 9

Date OSn6199

Timekeeper G. Witmer

Hours Description of Services 13.20

08/26199 D. Scb.raver 13.50

08/27/99 G. Witmer 1.70

08127199 G. Witmer 3.00

08/27/99 D. Schraver 5.90

08127/99 S. Widger 0.10

08127/99 M. Calvaruso 0.50

08128/99 O. Witmer 3.50

08128/99 D_ Scblaver 0.30

08/30199 G. Witmer 1.70

08130199 G. Witmer 1-30

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice fH 8934&1 Page 10

_o

Date Timekeeper

08/30/99 G. Winner

Hours Description of Servjces 2.10

08130/99 G. Witme( 3.00

08130'99 D. Scliraver 6.20

08/.30/99 F. Hengerer 5.00

08/30199 S. Stritzel 0.70

08/31199 G. Witmer 13.30

08/31199 D. Schtaver 13.30

08/31199 F. Hengerer 7.00

08/31/99 S. Stri~l 3.90

'.

TOTAL HOURS;

584.00

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 11

TOT /4L FEES:

S115,458.00

-=
Nixon Peabody LLP
Invoice # 1893481 Page 12
TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY

Timekeep~I Rate HOUIS Fees
Partners
L. Galbraith 245.00 2.80 686.00
G. Witmer 250.00 181-90 45,475.00
D. Schraver 245.00 185.80 45.S2Loo
S. Widger 245.00 1.00 245,00
D. Cook 225.00 1.S0 337.50
Partners Totals 373.00 92,264.50
Associates
A. Farley 145.00 1.80 261.00
V. White 180.00· . 11.70 2.106.00
A. Luciano 90.00 13.00 1,170.00
S. Stritzel 145.00 55.30 8,018.50
r. Garvin 125.00 2.00 250.00
Associates Totals 83.80 11,805.50
Paralegals
F. Hengerer 90.00 115.60 10,404.00
R. Meserve 80.00 8.80 704.00
L. Dean 100.00 2.10 230.00
M. Calvaruso 100.00 0.50 50.00
Totals 127.20 11,388.00
Total AD Timekeepers: 584.00 $115~458.00 Date 08/02/99

08/02199 08102/99 08/m/99 08103/99 08'03199 08/05199 08/05/99 08105199 OSl05199 08/05/99 08/06/99

For Charges and DisbutSements:

Descr,mtion

Amount *5057.17·

2.75

14.60 0.20 6.80 0.30 9.80 4.90 2.00 1.70 0.31

*83.41

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893431 Page 13

For Charges and Disbursements:
08/06/99 12.00
08/06/99 0.10
08/06/99 2.40
08/06199 11.10
08/06/99 13.30
08/06/99 2.50
08/06J99 0.10
08106/99 0.50
08/06/99 0.30
08(06/99 0.20
08/06199 0.10
08/06/99 9.80
08/06/99 5.30
08/06199 1.30
08/06/99 0.10
08/06199 2.01
08/06/99 0.25
0&/06/99 0.25
08/06/99 O.5L
08/06/99 0.25
08106/99 3.28
08/06199 r.76
08/06/99 2.43
08/07/99 5.70
08/07/99 79.40
08107199 0.50
08/09199 7.50
08/09/99 19.10
08/09199 0.25
08/09/99 0.25
08/09/99 5.29
08/09199 0.51 .
O~/l0/99 *68.00
08/10/99 *2.46
08/10/99 *5.60
08/10/99 8.00
08110199 2,00
08/10/99 *55.90
08/10199 *55.00
08/10/99 0.62
08110/99 0.25
(l8Il0/9S! 0.25
08/10199 0.25 -

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 14

c

For Charges and Disbursements:
08/10/99 1.26
08110199- 9.06
08/10/99 0.64
08/10/99 0.16
08/11i99 1.00
08111199 7.20
013/i1l99 . 0.51
08/11/99 0.51
08/]1199 13.35
08/11/99 12.59
08/11/99 0.51
08/11199 0.51
08/11199 0.25
08/11/99 2.27
08/11199 0.25
013/11199 ozs
08/11/99 0.25
08/11199 0.92
08fl1l99 1.00
08111/99 7.20
08112199 1.30
08/12/99 0.2S
08/12/99 7.35
08/13/99 16.00
08/13/99 *98.12
08/13/99 1.40
08113199 0.25
08113/99 10.07
08/13/99 9.31
08/13/99 2.77
08113/99 0.31
08(13/99 0.76
08/13/99 2.16
08115/99 0.36
08/15/99 4.00
08/16/99 24.00
08116/99 3.00
08116199 *100.15
08/16/99 "'309.85
08/Ui/99 13.00
08/16199 2.7:7
08116199 1.76 . I

• I

r I

• I

' .

.

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 15

For Charges and Disbursements:
08116/99 0.31
08116/99 1.23
08/17/99 2.27
08111199 0.25
08118/99 *U!8.68
08/18/99 *30.40
08118199 88.35
08/18/99 *7.15
08/18199 *5.50
08/18199 :&1:29.21
08/18f99 *3.00
08/18/99 0.20
08/18199 3.00
08118199 0.20
08/18/99 0.10
08/18/99 5.20
081l8f99 3.00
08/18/99 6.20
08/18199 0.70
08/18199 0.70
08/18/99 6.00
08/18199 1.50
08/18/99 3.80
08/18/99 3.70
08/18/99 3.10
08/18/99 1.51
08118199 0.25
08/18199 0.25
08118/99 0.25
08/18/99 0.31
08/18/99 0.25
08118199 0.31
08/18/99 0.28
08118199 0.25
08/18/99 0.31,
08/18/99 0.31
08/18/99 1.85
08/18/99 0.31
08/18199 0.25
08/18/99 0.25
08/18/99 2.27 -

Ni"on Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 16

For Charges and Disbursements:
08/18199 1.76
08/18199 1.23
08/18/99 0.60
08/18/99 3.85
08fl8/99 0.76
08/18/99 0.60
08118/99 0.60
08/18/99 0.25
08118199 20.00
OSI19199 20.00
08119/99 12.00
OS'19/99 6.00
08/19/99 0.20
08/19/99 0.30
08119199 3.00
08119199 0.60
08119/99 1.23
08120199 5.00
08120/99 *78.99
OS/20r99 0.77
08120/99, 0.28
08120/99 1.01
08120199 0.25
08120/99 0.51
08120199 0.31
08/20/99 0.92
08120199 0.31
08120/99 0.25
08120/99 0.31
08/20/99 0.36'
08120199 1.20
08120/99 1.60
08120199 1.40
.' 08121/99 1.00
08121199 4.00
08121/99 2.00
03123199 24.00 08/23/99 08/23/99 08123199

9.00 0.25 4.03

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #l893481 Page 17

.

'.

For Charges and Disbursements:
08123/99 0.76
08123/99 0.25
08123/99 0.51
08123199 1.65
08123/99 1.40
08/23/99 0.92
08/23/99 32.10
08/24/99 1.60
08/24199 1.70
08125199 *5955.40
08/25/99 8.00
08/1.5/99 6.10
08125199 *5214.90
08125199 35.00
08/25199 6.00
00125199 9.00
08125199 10.40
08125/99 0.62
08f2S199 1.54
08125'199 2.01
OSf25f99 2.01
08125199 0.51
08125/99 0.25
08125199 0.88
08/25/99 11.00
03/25/99 7.00
08126/99 *3546.54
08125/99 0.10
08127/99 18.00
08127/99 *89.02
08127/99 *89.02
08121199 2.00
08J27/99 0.28
08127199 0.25
08127199 0.90
081'1:1199 15.35
08121199 0.55
08130/99 4.00
08/30199 1.20
08130199 2.00
08/30/99 1.70
08/30/99 8.80
08/30199 1.40
08/3Q199 0.50 " -,

For Charges and Disbursements:

08130199 08/30199 08130/99 08/30/99 08130/99 08130/99 08130/99 08/30/99 08130199 08130/99 08/30199 08130199 08130/99 08130199 08130/99 08130199 08/30199 08130199 08130/99 08/30/99 08/30/99 08130/99 08/30199 08/30/99 08/30/99 08130199 08130199 08/30/99 08131199 08131199 08131/99 08131199

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 18

0.40

10.50 9.80 0.50 6.00 1.26 0.28 0,51 0.51 0.51 0.51 2.01 0.31 0.31 0.31 1.85 0.51

11.09 0.51 0.82 1.10 0.51 5.54 0.25 4.28

13.00

7.00 10.00 12.00 12.00

1.60 5.10

TOTAL CHARGES AND DISBURSEME~S

$22,073.64

TOTAL FOR l'v.lAT'l'ER -- GENERAL:

$131,531.64

* receipts attached

Nixon Peabody LLP

Invoice #1893481 Page 19

..

,"

Total Fees .................•..•.••.•..•.....

s s $

115,458.00 165,691.49

Total Charges and Disbursements . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Time and Costs .•••..•••...•..... _ . . . _ _ . . .

281,149.49

TOTAL FOR STATEMENT:

$281,149.49

"

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful