McComb lawyer Norman Gillis could receive a total of at least $73,838 from the City of McComb for representing the city in its 2002 dual-office lawsuit against David Myers.
Pike County Circuit Judge Mike Taylor ruled in his opinion on Wednesday that the city owes Gillis $12,500 in the Myers case.
But that total only represents Gillis’ work on appeals in the Myers case that went before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Mississippi Supreme Court.
A final order outlining how much Gillis will receive will be released at a later date.
Gillis’ original legal bill was for $123,000 in legal fees, which represents his services for the case that took more than six years to resolve. He later offered in a letter sent to city officials in July 2008 to discount that amount to $73,838 as a gift to the city.
The city board voted last year not to pay Gillis, and he appealed to Pike County Circuit Court.
An order from Taylor to the city to pay the $73,838 settlement was not in his opinion issued last week, and the judge instructed attorneys for both sides to calculate the total amount of Gillis’ legal services, attorney fees, interest and court costs. Once attorneys agree on the amount of compensation, it will be included in the judge’s order.
“We’re extremely pleased,” Gillis said.
The city’s lawsuit against Myers questioned whether he could serve as a selectman and a state representative at the same time. The Mississippi Supreme Court later ruled that Myers could not hold both offices simultaneously, and Myers stepped down from the board last year.
Gillis was asked by former city attorney, the late John H. “Bubber” White, to represent the city shortly after the suit was filed, and then-Mayor J.C. Woods approved the move. White recused himself from the case because of a conflict of interest.
Although there was no contract, Gillis argued in his appeal, he and White agreed that Gillis’ compensation would be on a time-and-work basis.
City selectmen later authorized Gillis to represent the city in several appeals involving the Myers case, according to the appeal.
The city claimed that Gillis was never authorized to represent it, because the contract was not in the board’s minutes.
Taylor wrote in his decision that a contract existed, despite not being in the board’s minutes, because the selectmen were aware that Gillis was representing the city in the case and took no action to stop him.
“Although Gillis’ contract or other authorization to represent the city and be paid for it was not initially spread upon the Mayor and Board of Selectmen meeting minutes,” Taylor continued, their acts and conduct disclose authorization and ratification.
“It is clear from the (board) minutes that the city understood Gillis was representing them in the (Myers) matter due to a conflict of interest (involving White),” Taylor wrote.
“The minutes show that while there was some opposition to Gillis’ efforts, there is no doubt that the city, through its board, understood the situation,” the judge wrote.
Taylor added later in his ruling that the city “did retain Gillis as its attorney in the Myers litigation,” adding that a contractual relationship existed between the city and Gillis in spite of the lack information about it in the board minutes.
“The city has chosen to rely solely on the lack of a ‘contract’ without considering whether a contractual relationship actually existed,” Taylor wrote.
