125965746_web1_beet-cake-1

Want a different kind of chocolate cake? Beet it!

The Latest: Knicks shut training center after positive tests

In response to last month&rsquo;s controversial U.S. Supreme Court recusal request, a Luzerne County Council majority decided Tuesday that Joyce, Carmody & Moran P.C. should not be hired to handle any future county litigation.
				Council members had no idea the firm would be filing the motion on the county&rsquo;s behalf seeking recusal of new Supreme Justice Amy Coney Barrett from a case involving ballot-counting deadlines and learned of the action through a burst of national and local media coverage highlighting the county&rsquo;s legal position on Oct. 27.
				After firm attorney Larry Moran briefed council on the filing the evening of Oct. 27, a council majority voted to withdraw the recusal request.
				Councilman Walter Griffith made Tuesday&rsquo;s motion to omit the law firm from future county government legal work. While he disagreed with the recusal request politically, Griffith asserted the ban from county work is warranted because he believes Moran misled council by indicating other Pennsylvania counties were joining the county&rsquo;s recusal request. Griffith said he saw no subsequent filings from other counties following suit.
				Griffith also said his motion was not seeking the law firm&rsquo;s removal from continuing to represent the county in the still-ongoing election litigation originally filed by President Donald Trump&rsquo;s campaign and the state Republican Party earlier this year against the state and all 67 counties.
				County Chief Solicitor Romilda Crocamo cautioned it would be &ldquo;very difficult&rdquo; and cost more to change law firms at this stage of the litigation. The county&rsquo;s insurance carrier also may not agree to such a switch, she said. Insurance is covering up to $100,000 in county defense costs because the litigation seeks legal fee reimbursement from the counties and state, Crocamo said.
				And while Crocamo said her office also was blindsided by the recusal filing, she believes other counties had planned to join in the recusal request but never followed through because Justice Barrett decided on her own she would not participate in an expedited election decision before the Nov. 3 general election.
				The recusal request was related to Republicans&rsquo; request for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the counting of mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received between 8 p.m. on Election Day and 5 p.m. on Nov. 6. The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue an expedited ruling before the general election as requested but left the door open to a possible post-election decision on the matter.
				Due to this potential reversal, Pennsylvania has instructed counties to segregate the combined 10,000 ballots they received in the three days following the election, and the results of these ballots have not been added to the publicly reported vote tallies.
				Six of the 11 county council members voted Tuesday to recommend no further hiring of Joyce, Carmody & Moran P.C.: Griffith, Harry Haas, Linda McClosky Houck, LeeAnn McDermott, Chris Perry and Stephen J. Urban.
				Council members Kendra Radle, Sheila Saidman, Robert Schnee, Matthew Vough and Tim McGinley voted against the action.
				Schnee said he was displeased with the recusal filing but noted the county law office now has safeguards in place to ensure such a filing could not be made again without advance notice and input from both the county law office and council.
				Saidman, an attorney, said it would be unfair to penalize the law firm when it wasn&rsquo;t explicitly stated in advance that outside legal counsel must clear such motions with the county law office and council. She predicted the county&rsquo;s credibility among legal professionals will be &ldquo;tarnished&rdquo; by ousting a &ldquo;very reputable&rdquo; firm.
				County assistant solicitor Vito DeLuca described Moran as a &ldquo;brilliant lawyer&rdquo; who was focused on winning the case for the county and said he did not personally advocate &ldquo;blacklisting a lawyer for being a zealous advocate for his client.&rdquo; DeLuca said the firm has performed well handling past county litigation and does not excessively bill the county &ldquo;for every second of every phone call.&rdquo;
				Crocamo also said she believes it would be an error to ban the county from retaining a &ldquo;lawyer of his caliber.&rdquo;
				But Haas said he is convinced the recusal filing was a &ldquo;political stunt&rdquo; and asserted council&rsquo;s action sends a message to not &ldquo;play politics with the county&rsquo;s trust.&rdquo;
				Moran could not immediately be reached for comment on council&rsquo;s action Tuesday night.

Law firm blacklisted over Supreme Court recusal filing