Alan Scheinman Requests Investigation of City Solicitor-Designee Alan Seewald

Lawyer Alan Seewald’s request to withdraw from a lawsuit against the city and the BID has been delayed by a judge until at least Feb. 15. Now, after expressing displeasure with what he sees as Seewald’s backroom negotiations with the mayor over a job offer, one of his clients has asked the Board of Bar Overseers to launch an investigation.

By DAVID REID

NORTHAMPTON – Alan Scheinman, a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city and the Northampton Business Improvement District, Inc., has asked the state Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) to investigate his lawyer’s actions, Northampton Media has learned.

Named in the grievance is lawyer Alan Seewald, who was picked last month by the city’s new mayor, David Narkewicz, as his choice to serve as Northampton’s city solicitor, a post that could earn Seewald in excess of $100,000 a year. Narkewicz, the City Council president and acting mayor, was elected mayor last November and was sworn in for a two-year term Jan. 3.

The snag is that Seewald has served for almost three years as the lawyer for Scheinman, music mogul Eric Suher and David Pesuit – all of whom own property downtown – in their lawsuit challenging the creation of the Northampton Business Improvement District. To date he has been paid more than $39,000 by his clients, Scheinman has said.

In late December, days after Narkewicz offered him the city solicitor’s job, Seewald filed an emergency motion in Hampshire Superior Court asking permission to withdraw from the BID lawsuit so as to clear any potential conflicts. The litigants opposed that motion, saying Seewald knows too much about their case to go work for their opponent in the case, the City of Northampton.

At a Jan. 6 hearing, Judge Mary-Lou Rup denied Seewald’s motion to withdraw for now, but said she’d entertain the motion again when the plaintiffs find a new lawyer and Seewald can bring that person up to speed. Seewald, Scheinman, Suher, and in all likelihood lawyers for both the city and the BID will meet back in Rup’s courtroom on Feb. 15.

Rup’s ruling leaves Narkewicz with a delay in seating his city lawyer of choice. At worst, Seewald could be forced to remain as “counsel of record” on the BID lawsuit, effectively blocking his appointment to the solicitor’s job.

(To see Northampton Media’s coverage of that hearing, click here.)

The Board of Bar Overseers

Scheinman, a lawyer himself, asked the state board – which handles ethical and legal complaints about lawyers operating in the state – to undertake an investigation into Seewald.

According to the BBO website, “The Board of Bar Overseers and the Office of the Bar Counsel were established by the Supreme Judicial Court in 1974 as independent administrative bodies to investigate and evaluate complaints against lawyers. Although both the Board and Bar Counsel are official bodies subject to the supervision of the Supreme Judicial Court, no public funds are spent to support them. The Bar Counsel’s and the Board’s expenses come solely from the annual registration fees paid by lawyers.. . .

“The Board acts as an administrative tribunal to consider disciplinary charges brought by Bar Counsel. When a lawyer is found guilty of misconduct the Board either imposes discipline or recommends to the Supreme Judicial Court that more serious discipline be imposed.” Eight of its 12 members are lawyers.

Scheinman told Northampton Media that he mailed a registered letter to the BBO last Tuesday, and that it arrived there the following day. The board does not make public its investigations, but told Scheinman he could disclose his request.

Asked what he told the board, Scheinman would not be specific, but said he was upset when he learned that Seewald had spoken with Narkewicz at least twice about the city solicitor’s job without informing his clients. It wasn’t so much that Seewald wanted to take another job, Seewald and Suher have said, but that the job offer came from the prime defendant in the BID lawsuit, the City of Northampton.

Also, Scheinman said last week he was surprised to learn that, for 12 months starting in March 2010, Seewald served as a member and then chairman of the city’s ad hoc Charter Review Committee. Although it was an unpaid position, Seewald was appointed by then-City Council President David Narkewicz and never told his clients he was serving on an official municipal committee while being paid to sue the city.

The lawsuit against the city and the BID was filed in April of 2009.

Distrustful Clients, But a Trusting Judge

The rift between Seewald and his BID lawsuit clients surfaced at the Jan. 6 hearing, when Suher and Scheinman argued against Seewald’s motion. They said they felt betrayed by Seewald and could no longer trust him because he wants to drop them as clients and hire on with the city. Seewald assured the judge he would protect his clients’ confidences while working for the city, and would have nothing to do with defending against the lawsuit.

In her four-page ruling on Dec. 13, Rup denied Seewald’s withdraw motion, without prejudice (which means he can resubmit it), and said she saw no ethical violations in the way he handled things and believed he would protect former clients’ confidences. And when Scheinman asked Rup if she would file a complaint against Seewald with the BBO, she said it was not within her purview to do so.

Seewald told Northampton Media he intends to resubmit his motion to withdraw at the Feb. 15 hearing.

At the Jan. 6 hearing, Scheinman said that co-plaintiff Eric Suher had raised concerns almost a year ago about whether Seewald’s close ties to City Hall insiders would prevent him from enthusiastically pressing their lawsuit against the city. To prove his point, Scheinman gave the judge some emails between himself and Seewald, which became part of the official and public record. (To see those emails, including Seewald’s indignant response, click here.)

Meanwhile, Scheinman told us last week that he and Suher have already begun interviewing other lawyers to represent them in the BID lawsuit. Seewald has offered to transfer all his files and correspondence to the new legal counsel, at no cost, something the judge said was necessary.

In her ruling, Rup suggested that Seewald should not take the city solicitor’s post until he had completed the transition of material to new lawyers for the BID case. But she did not say she would prevent him from doing so.

Narkewicz told us he is sticking with Seewald as his choice for city solicitor, describing him as perhaps the best municipal lawyer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has also asked the current city solicitor, Elaine Reall, to stay on until Seewald can assume that post, and Reall told us she has agreed to do so.

On one point, at least, Mayor Narkewicz and the BID lawsuit plaintiffs agree: Seewald, who served for years as the Amherst town counsel, is an excellent municipal lawyer. So it’s no wonder both sides want him on their team.

Seewald has said he would love to serve the Northampton community as its city solicitor. In three weeks, we’ll find out what Judge Rup has to say about it.

© 2011 Northampton Media

David Reid can be reached at dreid@northamptonmedia.com

(Jan. 27 correction — an earlier version of this story inaccurately said Scheinman had alleged an ethics violation on Seewald’s part in a “complaint” filed with the Board of Bar Overseers.  Scheinman clarified today that he had not drawn any conclusions about Seewald’s actions in his “request for investigation” filed with the BBO, but had “outlined the facts” as he knew them and asked the BBO for a determination. -Ed.)