HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-78-0760RESOLUTION f0.° s 8 4 7 6 0
A Rt SoLUTION APPRoVING4 RATIFYING AND
CONFIRMING THE ACTION of THE CITY ATTORNEY
REGARDING THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE LAW FIRM OF
LONG & SMITH TO REPRESENT THE CITE` OP MIAMI
IN THE CASE OF WILLIAM R,SMITH V, RONALD Rr
REEDER AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, ETC,, DADE
CIRCUIT COURT, CASE NO 77=26789(28); AUTHOR
"SUPPORTIVE, IZINC THE PAYMENT OF $5,267.86 TO. THE SAID
n � •�LAW FIRM WITH MONIES THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM
DOCUI'� THE SELF --INSURANCE TRUST FUND,
FOLLW"
RiC/
i2/6/is
WHEREAS, William R. Smith, a private citizen,
filed an action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit against the City of Miami and Lt. Ronald R. Reeder,
a Miami. Police officer, as the result of an incident which
took place March 8, 1977 and which was witnessed by another
citizen, Clinton J. Pitts; and
WHEREAS, since the date of the incident which
involved the arrest of Mr. Smith and the seizure of property
ov Lt. Reeder., the witness to the incident, Mr. Pitts, has
become an Assistant City Attorney assigned to represent the
City in its defense of litigation; and
WHEREAS, it was not legally or ethically possible
for the City Attorney or any member of his staff to handle the
trial of this case where the testimony of Assistant City Attorney
Pitts was known to be critical
of the controversy; and
and nece`ssou6u pxtor yelcation
ITEM NO.
WHEREAS, due to the exigency of circumstances the
City Attorney entered into an interim agreement for professional
services in the aforesaid litigation with the law firm of Long &
Smith, Suite 2382, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South . Biscayne Boulevard,
Miami, Florida 33131; and
WHEREAS, the case has been successfuly disposed of by
way of Summary Judgment in .favor of the City, and the City
Attorney may now handle the appeal if one is brought; and,
WHEREAS,
the
City
Commission
aforesaid action of the City Attorney;
desires to
r4 -F f ,the _...__--
CITY COMMIS``
MEETING OF
DEC 41978
ISIXATION
't.l ,:i.l.;,., 6
'NOW, TNEtti t'OREi BE IT RESOLVED $Y tilt CO tMISStf t
OE Tilt CITY O-t' MtAMt PLoRtDA:
Section l.. The. prior action of .the City Attoriey
tegatding• the etPloyMent of the law fitm of Lotig & Smith ih
cotitiectioh .with representing the City of Miami in -the case•of
Witliath n. Smith V Ronald 32._ Reeder and the City of Miatni,.'.e.tc,
Dade Circuit Court Case No. 77=26789(28)
ratified and -confirmed.
Section 2. Payment of the sum of $5267.86 to
law firm of Long & Smith, for professional services rendered
in the above lawsuit, is hereby approved, with funds allocated
there for from the Self -Insurance Trust 'Fund.
PASSED AI`D ADOPTED this 14th day of December, 1978.
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
is hereby approvod,
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAURICE A. FERRE, M A Y 0 R
OBERT F. CLARK, ASSISTA.T CITY ATTORNEY
it
ll`l El/,OFFICE vitt ANb U •i
orabe Members Deeettme+, 17
City Co ° is _ toti
R Smith vs, -Ronald R
Reederid City bf 1I:athi, eta
-�'► Gicii�_, Court No77 26751 -__ .
The Plaintiff, William R, Smith, filed an action against the City
of Miami and Lt. Ronald I, Reeder on October 20, 1977 alleging
unlawful detention (false imprisonment) as a result of being stopped.
and charged on March 8, 1977 with illegally displaying "Fraternal
Order of Police" emblem on the rear of his vehicle.
The law suit further alleged that the City of Miami negligently
retained Lt, Ronald R, Reeder within its Police Department, knowing
that Reeder was inclined to wrongfully assert his authority towards
certain individuals with whom he made contact in the course and scope
of his official duties as a police officer,
Assistant City Attorney Clinton J. Pitts was present at the scene
of the complained of incident and was a witness to certain facts as
it relates to the incident, Based upon the probability that Mr. Pitts
would be called as a witness and pursuant to the Disciplinary Rules
which govern lawyers, it was not legally or ethically proper for the
City Attorney or any member of his staff to handle the trial of this.
case where the testimony of Assistant City Attorney Pitts was known
to be critical and necessary for an adjudication of the controversy.
Due to the exigency of circumstances, the. City Attorney entered into
an interim agreement for professional services in the aforesaid liti-
gation with the law firm of Long & Smith, Suite 2382, One Biscayne
Tower, Miami, Florida. The case has been successfully disposed of by
way of summary judgment in favor of the City of Miami and the City
Attorney may now handle the appeal if one is brought.
Due to the competent and effective representation provided by Mr.
H. T. Smith, of the firm of Long and Smith, the City Attorney's Office
recommends that the payment of the sum of $5,267.86 be made to the
law firm of Long and Smith for professional services rendered in the
case of William R. Smith vs. Ronald R. Reeder and the City of Miami, etc.
being Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 77-26789 (2S).
GFK/CJP/fl
Resolution attached