BB-2024-CV-000075 is an ongoing lawsuit by all three members of the Board of Bourbon County Commissioners against the Board of Bourbon County Commissioners. The Commissioners are joined on the plaintiff side by six citizens and on the defendant side by four solar companies.
Jennifer Hill, the lawyer representing the Bourbon County Commissioners on the Defendant side of the lawsuit, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel because “the fact that since the filing of this lawsuit, the Board of County Commissioners of Bourbon County, Kansas is now made up of three individuals who are all also named Plaintiffs in the litigation. Plaintiffs Whisenhunt, Beerbower, and Kruger are the three elected board members of the County commission. Such continued representation violates KRPC 1.7.”
She went on to say that if the County Commission cannot retain counsel, they would need to appear at any future hearings personally. KRPC 1.7 deals with situations where a lawyer discovers that representing a client creates a conflict of interest. For example, any conversation Ms. Hill had with her clients of the County Commission as defendants of the lawsuit would necessarily be shared with three of the people who filed the lawsuit against the County Commission.
Rule 1.7 does allow a lawyer to continue to represent a client even when there is a conflict of interest, but only if:
“the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal;”
This conflict of interest would appear to apply to any counsel that the County Commission retained. If that is the case, then the County Commission may be forced to represent itself.
Patrick Hughes of Adams Jones Law Firm in Wichita is representing the Plaintiffs. If Rule 1.7 required Jennifer Hill to withdraw as counsel due to a conflict of interest, it would seem there would be a conflict by the counsel representing the Plaintiffs as well.
On 2/5/2025, three solar companies filed briefs supporting their motion to dismiss. They claim that the plaintiffs appear to be trying to make changes to their petition without following the correct procedures, failing to address the Defendants’ arguments, and having no standing to file the lawsuit in the first place.
The Responses to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss only serve to reinforce the notion that the sole basis of Plaintiffs’ claim is that they do not like the Agreements but do not have any actual, legal injury that entitles them to relief. Accordingly, dismissal is required.
BB-2024-CV-000075 – Defendant Hinton Creek Solar LLCs Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
“She went on to say that if the County Commission cannot retain counsel, they would need to appear at any future hearings personally. KRPC 1.7 deals with situations where a lawyer discovers that representing a client creates a conflict of interest. ” You just said that a Mr. Hughs was the attorney for the Plaintiffs; why would the Plaintiffs need to appear by themselves as Defendants?