On the same day, a judicial reform organization filed a formal complaint against the recently appointed district judge Joe Dawson over his $ 216,000 contract with the Charleston county government, county officials revealed that it was Dawson himself who drafted the deal.
The revelation was made on February 16 by county council chairman Teddie Pryor at the formal board meeting and came hours after Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Fix the Court, filed a formal complaint. judicial ethics on the agreement.
“The things being paid violate ethical standards for federal judges,” said Roth, citing the Charleston County contract with Dawson that was obtained by the Post and Courier through the Freedom of Information Act.
Former Charleston County team attorney Joe Dawson is now a federal judge in South Carolina.
Dawson was a Charleston County attorney until his confirmation in the United States Senate in December. Days before his confirmation, Dawson signed an agreement to provide the county with 12 months of services if he became a judge.
The genesis of where this agreement came from has not been confirmed until now. Councilman Kylon Middleton raised the issue at a previous meeting.
“Sir. Dawson, the lawyer, drafted the agreement,” said Pryor at the February 16 board meeting, raising additional questions.
The controversial document states that, in exchange for $ 216,000, Dawson “agrees to provide the county with its institutional and historical knowledge and insight into the procedures related to services provided or required, or non-legal advice on matters in which it has pertinent knowledge for twelve months from the date of their separation. “
A board member who was not at the meeting where the deal was discussed in December said Tuesday night that he would object.
“I would not have been in favor of that,” said councilman Henry Darby. “I would never have agreed to this. Never.”
Other council members said they were aware of the agreement and needed Dawson’s continued knowledge because he served as a county attorney for 20 years. Still, some said they did not know how much he should receive.
“Since we are cleaning the air, I really discussed very briefly if we needed access to Joe Dawson’s knowledge after he left and I said ‘absolutely’,” said Councilman Dickie Schweers. “I was never asked about payment on the current contract.”
However, the Fix the Court complaint says that Dawson cannot be in the county service at the same time while sitting on the federal bench.
“You can’t do another job after being a judge,” said Roth. “If you want to make more money besides being a judge, write a book or teach a class.”
The deal, which was not disclosed in Dawson’s judicial screening questionnaire, also requires him to receive 1.5% of any amount the county recovers as a plaintiff in national disputes over opioid pharmaceuticals. Dawson was one of the top seven lawyers for the case in the county.
“With regard to the 1.5% litigation rate, I have no idea where it came from,” said Schweers.
Roth said that part of the deal may be allowed by the ethics statutes as deferred compensation, but “it doesn’t look great.” He noted that the Purdue Pharma litigation is an ongoing federal case.
Dawson did not return a call to the US District Court office in Greenville asking for comment and did not respond to previous requests for comment.
Charleston County Council members gave conflicting reports about the purpose of the deal with Dawson – one called “retainer” while another called severance pay – and has so far refused to say who wrote or approved the deal.
Councilor Jenny Costa Honeycutt said the council members knew what was going on and that Dawson’s pending departure was an urgent situation.
“All this sign of hypocritical virtue is blowing my mind because we were all there,” she said.
“It was already being approved by the United States Senate. Things were happening extremely fast, ”said Honeycutt. “Could it have been done better? It probably could have. “
She said several other county prosecutors left when Dawson did, creating an urgent need to find a replacement. The county has been scrutinizing the finalists for Dawson’s work for weeks.
“I hope we can continue to rely on Mr. Dawson to provide the knowledge – not legal advice – as we move forward,” said Honeycutt.
Charleston County Council members Teddie Pryor (from left), Herb Sass and Anna Johnson discuss the council’s business on February 16, 2021 in North Charleston. Grace Beahm Alford / Staff
Councilor Anna Johnson also said that the board members, with the exception of Darby, were all in the room when Dawson’s contract was discussed during a non-public executive session.
“Everyone was there when we discussed Mr. Dawson’s salary and even 1.5%,” she said.
Darby wanted to know how the deal would be approved if there was no vote.
Johnson said the county council chairman at the time – Elliott Summey – and the county administrator had authority. Summey, who is no longer on the board and responsible for Charleston International Airport, has denied knowledge of the details of the deal.
“I don’t think anyone did anything with unethical intentions,” said Pryor. “We work very hard to have our names scandalized. We all make mistakes and we all need forgiveness ”.
Judicial complaints at the 4th Circuit are handled by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, but the process is not transparent. Complaints are not disclosed unless the person making the complaint makes it known, as in this case.
Professor Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh, a specialist in judicial ethics, said that legal complaints can take three paths. Most, he said, are driven by disgruntled claimants and quickly rejected for lacking merit. But the rest goes to a special commission appointed by the chief judge or is resolved by the judge in question by taking “voluntary corrective actions”.
“My research has shown that this is usually the case in cases with a very clear ethical violation,” said Hellman, referring to voluntary corrective action.
“I think for the chief judge to complete this without sending him to a special commission, Judge Dawson would have to return the money, in addition to waiving the contract,” he said.
It is not known whether the Fix the Court complaint is the first or the only complaint filed in connection with the matter.
Decisions about complaints are eventually published on the 4th Circuit website, but they usually do not identify the judge, the complainant or the details of the complaint.