CASEYVILLE - Village of Caseyville attorney Doug Stewart requested criminal prosecution of persons who claimed the village repaired a truck it didn’t own, according to a statement he issued to residents on Dec. 20.
Stewart stated he and Police Chief Tom Coppoletti met with the state’s attorney’s office regarding alleged false reports to state and federal law enforcement.
“The compiled evidence will be provided in the coming weeks with a formal review by the St. Clair County state’s attorney’s office beginning shortly thereafter,” he wrote.
Stewart provided a chronology of events from May 8 to Nov. 14 relating to an allegation that Gerard Scott Jr. owned the truck at issue.
Scott is a county board member and son of Caseyville Mayor Gerard Scott Sr.
Stewart claimed the allegations were unsubstantiated and he would ask trustees to authorize recovery of funds the village used to investigate the allegations.
He stated he would likely recommend “legal action against those who perpetuated the scheme to defraud the village of tens of thousands of taxpayer funds.”
He didn’t identify potential subjects of criminal action but stated a civil action would involve trustee Matt Modrovsky, Belleville resident Brad Van Hoose and others.
He stated the false allegations originated from a group Modrovsky led.
He stated the group included Nick Beland, Billy Hayes, Rebecca Take, and Van Hoose.
Gerard Scott Jr. filed a defamation suit against Van Hoose in St. Clair County Circuit Court in October, with Stewart as his counsel.
Stewart issued subpoenas to Modrovsky and trustees Dan Cary and Kent Luebbers.
They required counsel, but Stewart couldn’t represent them due to his conflict of interest.
The agenda for the Nov. 15 meeting of trustees included a motion to retain Van-Lear Eckert as counsel to represent Modrovsky, Cary and Luebbers.
Trustees tabled the motion, and they didn’t discuss the issue at their Dec. 20 meeting.
Luebbers said afterward, “I tried to put it on the agenda, but it got shot down.”
However, Stewart represents both the village and the mayor’s son.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 1.7 prohibits a concurrent conflict of interest, which exists if responsibility to a client will materially limit representation of another client.
The rule allows exceptions where lawyers believe they can provide competent and diligent representation to clients and each client gives informed consent.
It states, “Informed consent requires that each affected client be aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material and reasonably foreseeable ways that the conflict could have adverse effects on the interests of that client.
“Under some circumstances it may be impossible to make the disclosure necessary to obtain consent.
“For example, when the lawyer represents different clients in related matters and one of the clients refuses to consent to the disclosure necessary to permit the other client to make an informed decision, the lawyer cannot properly ask the latter to consent.
“A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer’s representation at any time.”
The rule also states that a directly adverse conflict might arise when a lawyer cross examines a client appearing as a witness in a lawsuit involving another client, “as when the testimony will be damaging to the client who is represented in the lawsuit.”
It states, “Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests.”
“The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client,” it continues.
The rule states that a lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client and each client has a right to information on anything that might affect the client’s interest.
In the defamation suit that Stewart filed against Van Hoose for Gerard Scott Jr., he alleges Van Hoose made statements he knew or should have known were false and misleading with intent to cast Scott in low moral character.
The complaint alleges Van Hoose published the statements to law enforcement and news agencies, posted them on Facebook pages he controlled and sent statements via Facebook Messenger.
Stewart wrote, “Defendant published these statements with malice.”
He requested an injunction against future false statements, an injunction against contact with Scott and his family making similar statements, and damages exceeding $50,000.
St. Clair County Circuit Judge Heinz Rudolf has set a status conference for Jan. 31.