Font Size: 
Anti-Casino Groups Call for Probe of Cozen O'Connor Attorneys
The Legal Intelligencer
August 23, 2007
A group of private citizens, under the banner of hallwatch.org and Casino-Free Philadelphia, have asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board to investigate the conduct of former Gaming Control Board Chairman Tad Decker and members of his current firm, Cozen O'Connor.
The letter to Anthony P. Sodroski, disciplinary counsel-in-charge, offers a litany of complaints that suggest Decker's role on the board was in conflict with firm founders Stephen A. Cozen and Patrick J. O'Connor and other Cozen O'Connor attorneys who represented winning slot license applicant SugarHouse Casino. Decker spent four years at Cozen O'Connor before joining the Gaming Control Board as its chairman in 2004.
The complaint questions whether Decker's recusal in voting on SugarHouse's application was enough considering he voted on other applicants. It also questions whether he improperly negotiated an employment contract with Cozen O'Connor during his time on the board.
Both Decker and Cozen called the complaint "scurrilous" and said several of the issues have already been dealt with by the state Supreme Court in upholding the board's license awards.
Cozen said the "statements of innuendo" are "false, defamatory and scurrilous."
Decker called the comments made in the complaint regarding his possible future representation of casino groups "McCarthyism at its worst."
He said he had already made clear that even though he was not acting as a lawyer on the board, he would not participate in any matter at Cozen O'Connor that he was involved with while on the board. He also said he would not appear before the board for two years.
Cozen said it was inappropriate for anyone to publicly announce the filing of a complaint with the disciplinary counsel, as he said the groups did on Tuesday. He said it subjects them to causes of action for libel and defamation, and the firm will look into whether it will do anything with that.
James Schwartzman of Stevens & Lee, who handles professional-responsibility cases, said complaints to the disciplinary board are supposed to be kept confidential.
"I think it's disgusting," Schwartzman said of publicizing the complaint, adding later "if this is not using the system I don't know what is."
If an attorney helped the groups write up the complaint, he or she could be held responsible for violations of professional-conduct rules, he said.
"It's a perversion of the disciplinary process," Schwartzman said.
Ed Goppelt, webmaster of hallwatch.org, said the complaint was written by private citizens and is therefore not subject to confidentiality.
Within the complaint, there is mention of whether Decker violated Rule 1.12(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that "a lawyer shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially as judge or other adjudicative officer or third-party neutral."
The complaint also alleged that Decker and O'Connor had ex parte contacts while Decker was on the board.
Decker said he and O'Connor definitely had dinners together because they had known each other for 30 years. There was never, however, any ex parte communication, he said.
Decker had left the Gaming Control Board on Aug. 8 and started at Cozen O'Connor on Aug. 9. He said he did not have any contract negotiations with Cozen O'Connor until June, well after licensing decisions were made.
Both Cozen and Decker pointed to the firm's merger talks with Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen as proof that no negotiations took place prior to the awarding of licenses.
Wolf Block and Cozen O'Connor were in merger talks from November 2006 to February 2007. The licenses were awarded in December 2006. Decker said that it was no secret that if the two firms had merged, he would not be heading up Cozen O'Connor right now.
Decker said the board's general counsel told him at the time that he did not have to recuse himself from the proceedings, but he wanted to avoid any perception of impropriety.
Aside from Decker's actions, the complaint also alleges "all Cozen attorneys are disqualified from representing SugarHouse because the firm has not taken measures spelled out in Rule 1.12(c) to deal with Mr. Decker's conflict of interest."
Cozen laughed at the mention of this portion of the complaint.
"We're satisfied that everything that we did met every appropriate legal, as well as moral, standard," Cozen said.
He said anyone who reads this complaint should recognize it as a political device to embarrass Decker and the firm. He said they wouldn't be intimidated.
The complaint asks for inquiries not only of Decker, Cozen and O'Connor, but also of firm Vice Chairman F. Warren Jacoby, and firm attorneys Jennifer McHugh, Jeffrey Leonard, Gerald Schrager, Marc Intriligator and Lance Levine.
Goppelt said only Jacoby responded to inquiries he made to the attorneys about the relationship between the firm and Decker.
Chief Disciplinary Counsel Paul J. Killion was not available for comment by the time of publication.
