By BOB HIGH

A grievance against Columbus County’s former attorney James E. Hill Jr. has been filed by the county commissioners alleging that Hill has failed to turn over files pertaining to county business during his more than 28 years as county attorney.

The News Reporter has learned new county attorney Steve Fowler filed the complaint on Aug. 14. A spokesman for the N.C. State Bar said Friday, “We do not confirm such filings.”

Hill said Friday that he will abide by the State Bar’s requirements. “I have in the past, and I will continue to do so.

“I don’t understand it. I’ve given them copies of everything they’ve ever asked for,” the veteran attorney said.

Fowler had “no comment” about the action. He said it involved “attorney-client matters.” His filing, made on behalf of the board of commissioners, included four typewritten, single-spaced pages of information about the complaint.

Fowler noted in the filing that he asked the State Bar to be the “complaining party” in the matter, and said the “County of Columbus, the Office of Columbus County nor I as Columbus County Attorney” wish to be named as the entity or person making the complaint.

“I would, preferably, like any original county/client file Attorney Hill currently has in his possession,” Fowler wrote the State Bar on July 31, noting he wanted not just files inside the legal six-year limit, but all files generated by the county during Hill’s many years as county attorney.

First inquiry

On Dec. 20, 2005, Fowler made his first request to Hill regarding county files, and Hill “did not provide this office with legal copy or copy thereof in the Dewayne Devon Frink vs. Columbus County Sheriff’s Office” case.

Hill, who gave up the post of county attorney in June 2005, told Fowler there was nothing more in the file other than the basic pleadings, and “he did not provide me with these written pleadings,” Fowler told the State Bar.

Hill reported that he went to the county administration offices Friday afternoon and learned that the 51-page proceedings in the Frink vs. Columbus County case were in a file in the county commissioners’ clerk’s office.

The Frink case began in 2005 and was filed in Robeson County on behalf of Frink, who committed suicide in the Columbus County Jail on July 9, 2003. The suit charges that members of the Columbus County Sheriff’s Office were negligent in not maintaining close supervision on Frink and allowed him to take his own life.

Fowler said he again spoke with Hill on March 16, 2006 regarding his need to get legal files he had during Hill’s tenure as the county attorney.

Hill’s letter

Hill replied to Fowler four days later and noted “copies of all the important parts of the county files had been previously given to Columbus County at various times” during his 28.5 years as county attorney, in full compliance with the State Bar.

“Since I was privately retained as the attorney and not a fulltime staff attorney (with employee benefits), the files in my possession are my personal work product … and must remain in my possession,” Hill wrote.

“This distinction of employment status is important. As a staff employee or any other employee of the county, the files would be the property of the county,” Hill pointed out. He said he “always delivered originals of documents to the county at the time of execution, closing or after recordation.”

Hill said he had previously told Fowler the last time he saw any of the county’s files they were in a room on the second floor of the administration building and “appeared in disarray.”

Hill further wrote, “Copies of all important parts (lawsuits, election protests, financing arrangements, bond issues, DSS hearings, personnel administrative hearings, public hearings, etc.) were given during or following the conclusion of each matter to each administrator/manager, or to the Clerk to the Board, or to other chief administrative officials, various department heads or other individuals in charge during my tenure in the position.

Didn’t request

“When I became the county attorney I did not ask for, nor did I expect to receive Mr. Sankey Robinson’s personal work product files because I understood they were his property,” Hill pointed out in his letter.

“What the county officials did with these files, documents and filings, frankly, I do not know.”

Hill noted the list of people given documents throughout the years included Emogene Suggs, Richard B. Self, Charles Marshburn, Roy Lowe, Gayle Godwin, Ida Smith, Dempsey Herring, Darren Currie, Billy Joe Farmer, Roxanne Coleman, Natalie Carroll and June Hall, plus various department heads and other support staff.

“I also informed you (Fowler) that I believe some of the files were moved to the old Hill’s (grocery) building before remodeling. In any event, you can contact the above individuals to determine the location of the previously provided county’s copies of the files.

“It is my belief they should exist somewhere,” Hill concluded.

Fowler replied to Hill by letter on May 8, and said the county is entitled to “our client files for at least a period of six years prior to the last date of representation. This includes cases started previous to six years prior to your resignation, but were completed within the past six years of your service.

Retrieval fee

“It is my understanding a retrieval fee, by a third party, can be reimbursed to you by us if such a fee is charged. However, I understand your office cannot charge an hourly rate for the time you spend to retrieve a file or document for a former client.

“We do not wish, in any circumstance, for you to destroy any of these client files,” Fowler said in the May letter.

Hill did not reply in writing to the May letter, and Fowler wrote again on July 18. Fowler noted “the County supports the previous statement” to Hill, and sent Hill a copy of the State Bar’s rules regarding former client files.

Fowler set a deadline of Aug. 1 for his office to “obtain its client files . . . otherwise, the County will take any appropriate steps.”

The next document is a two-page letter from The N.C. State Bar dated July 27, sent to both Hill and Fowler, written by Deanna S. Brocker, assistant ethics counsel.

Brocker noted the “Rules of Professional Conduct” require an attorney to keep original closed client files for six years following the date the file was closed. If the original file is given to the client before the end of the six years, then this requirement has been met.

Second copy

“If the attorney elects to keep a copy of the file after giving the original to the client, and the client requests a second copy, then the attorney must provide a copy of the file to the client, but is not required to pay for that copy,” Brocker wrote.

Brocker noted she could not resolve the dispute between Hill and the county, but would provide both with advice.

“First, if any original files (excluding handwritten notes and unfinished drafts) have not been turned over to the county previously, then those files in Mr. Hill’s possession must be relinquished to the county.

“Mr. Hill may retain a copy of those original files if he chooses, but must pay for the copy charges.

“Second, for any other files that Mr. Hill has in his possession for which the county is now requesting copies, Mr. Hill must either allow the county to copy the documents or make arrangements to have the files copied for the county and then charge the county for the copy costs.

“If Mr. Hill chooses the latter option, copy costs should be the actual costs of making the copies,” Brocker wrote.

She also pointed out the county wanted to know the per page charge for copies before Hill made any copies.

Save money

Fowler, in his July 31 letter to Brocker, said the county has not received “any vast collection of original files” from Hill. Fowler said if the county had the files “they would be so voluminous they would be easy to locate.”

He further wrote to Brocker, “By being provided with an original file, this would save county taxpayers money in copying costs. Otherwise, we would like copies of all files with any copy charges shown to this office in advance by writing.”

Finally, on Aug. 10, Fowler was sent a letter from Benton Walton of the local Williamson & Walton firm, on behalf of Hill.

Walton requested Fowler, three county commissioners and the county manager meet with Walton and Hill “to work out details of the magnitude of the project and cost of the copying of the files.”

Walton said the county’s request for all files during Hill’s 28-plus years appeared to request files and matters “that were not pertinent or had long since been resolved.”

Walton said he hoped the matter could be settled prior to the commissioners’ regular meeting date of Aug. 21.

Fowler refuted Walton’s meeting suggestion on Aug. 16, two days after he filed the grievance. Fowler said, “At this time, I decline your offer to meet on this topic,” and told Walton “in my opinion, this office does not wish to circumvent the direct knowledge or involvement of any county commissioner by selectively inviting a chosen few of them to meet on this topic.”