In a Lancaster County civil-rights case, one private law firm defended both the County and the very officials accused of violating citizens’ rights — all at public expense.
State law required separate representation and public approval, but no record shows either occurred. Courts refused to review the conflict.

Read the background of the case here. The page explains the underlying election-integrity dispute that led to the lawsuit and the County’s legal response.

 

The Arrangement

In 2023, Lancaster County hired McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC to defend “County of Lancaster only and no one else.” See here. 📄
Despite that limitation, McNees appeared for six defendants in Miller v. County of Lancaster (5:24-cv-05338) — the County itself and five officials sued personally for alleged constitutional violations. See MILLER v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER (5:24-cv-05338)

Invoices show that the County paid legal fees for all the defendants.
No public vote, written authorization, or conflict waiver appears in County records.
That decision created one taxpayer-funded defense for two sides that state law requires to be separate.

 

Why the Roles Must Be Separate

An official-capacity defense protects the government for what it did.
A personal-capacity defense protects the individual from personal liability.

Those interests directly conflict:

  • The County’s defense depends on blaming the officials as rogue actors.

  • Each official’s defense depends on blaming County policy.

One lawyer cannot ethically argue both positions. What should have been two opposing defenses became a single taxpayer-funded echo chamber.

 

The Ethical Rules Violated

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct make the limits clear:

  • Rule 1.13(a) — A government lawyer represents the entity, not its officers.

  • Rule 1.7(a) — Lawyers cannot represent conflicting interests without written consent.

  • Rule 1.8(f) — A lawyer paid by a third party must remain independent.

McNees’s own engagement letter forbade representing individuals, yet the firm did exactly that — while being paid by the County.
No written waivers exist.

No lawyer can defend both the public treasury and an official’s private liability at the same time.

The County’s Legal Breach

Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8547(b)–(c), a county may fund an employee’s personal defense only after:

  • The employee requests representation in writing;

  • The Board of Commissioners approves it in a public vote; and

  • If one lawyer represents both County and employee, the employee must sign written consent or receive separate counsel.

None of those steps occurred.

Yet Lancaster County paid McNees to defend the officials personally — converting public money into private legal subsidies.
These safeguards are mandatory, not optional.
Ignoring them violated both the fiscal and ethical limits of the statute, exposing everyone involved to repayment and disciplinary liability.

 

What Happened in Court

When I challenged the conflict in court, (ECF 51), McNees attorney, Sarah Hyser-Staub argued that I had “no standing” to question the arrangement and that each defendant could “choose their own lawyer.” (ECF 74)

Taxpayers, however, had no choice — they were paying the bills.

Both the district court and the Third Circuit declined to review the issue, leaving the conflict, funding, and objections unresolved on the record.

 

Why It Matters

Three failures converged:

  • Ethical failure — One firm represented opposing interests under a single public retainer.

  • Fiscal failure — The County paid private legal bills with public funds, violating § 8547.

  • Judicial failure — Courts refused to examine the conflict or the misuse of funds.

Each failure reinforced the others.
The ethical lapse enabled the fiscal one, and judicial silence sealed them both.

When oversight collapses in sequence, taxpayers fund every argument while no one defends the public’s interest.

“Public ethics aren’t measured by what’s denied — they’re measured by what’s disclosed.”

Internal Link Reference

For the background on the underlying election-integrity dispute that led to this lawsuit, see Election Records Transparency Case.