The Pierce County Board’s Finance & Personnel Committee voted unanimously after a Monday, Feb. 6 closed session meeting to give Corporation Counsel Brad Lawrence a favorable review and recommend a corresponding step increase raise to the Board of Supervisors.

Lawrence and County Administrator Jason Matthys have faced scrutiny the past few weeks after a transcript from a phone call between Matthys and retired Chief Deputy Steve Albarado, which Albarado recorded on a sheriff’s office-issued cell phone, was released in an affidavit filed by retired Sheriff Nancy Hove’s attorney in a civil case Pierce County brought against Hove Nov. 7 for allegedly violating county personnel policies.

In the phone call, which took place Feb. 3, 2022, Matthys told Albarado that Lawrence knows “he’s crossed an ethics line.” County Board Chair Jon Aubart said the comment was interpreted out of context and Matthys agreed. Matthys said the comment had to do with Lawrence representing the interests of the citizens of Pierce County and also trying to counsel a Pierce County employee, Albarado, who had filed a hostile work environment complaint with the county against Hove. It was a tricky situation, he said, and the comment did not have to do with Lawrence hiding attorney payment fees for Albarado.

In an email to The Journal Jan. 9, Matthys explained why.

“Following a complaint filed by Chief Deputy Albarado in October 2021 alleging harassment and a hostile work environment created by Sheriff Hove, and because the Sheriff is elected and not subject to discipline by the County, Albarado sought outside counsel to assist and advise him with his employment issues with the Sheriff. The County worked with another outside firm to assist with mediation between Hove and Albarado which later proved unsuccessful. These efforts were necessary to respond to allegations and an attempt to resolve the working relationship between the Chief Deputy and the Sheriff, and the County’s Corporation Counsel has responsibility to represent the County and not staff. Those attorney fees were paid by the County in which invoices were in redacted form to protect the confidential personnel matter as well as Attorney/Client privileged information,” Matthys wrote.

Through a FOIA request made Jan. 6 and received Jan. 18, The Journal obtained invoices from the county from Bakke-Norman Law Offices in New Richmond and Eau Claire, who represented Albarado. Albarado’s name was listed on the invoices along with the term “employment matter.” Dates for service were from Oct. 12, 2021 to Oct. 24, 2022. The total amount of services paid by the county was $14,085. In the county’s “accounts payable distribution report,” three checks were cut to Bakke Norman for $990 on Feb. 4, 2022; for $11,070 on May 27, 2022; and for $2,025 on Dec. 30, 2022.

On Feb. 3, Lawrence wrote an email to Finance Director Julie Brickner regarding the payments: “Julie, please be advised I have an invoice related to legal work on a confidential personnel matter that I will be processing through New World. The invoice is redacted and meant to be that way due to confidentiality. This has been vetted with the Administrative Coordinator and County Board Chair, who have approved and authorized me to move forward in this fashion. Please let me know if you have any questions.”

In another email to Brickner dated May 23, 2022, Lawrence wrote: “Julie, once again I wanted to give you a heads up that I will be processing two invoices through New World related to legal work on a confidential personnel matter. The invoices are redacted and meant to be that way due to confidentiality. This has been vetted with the County Board Chair and Administrative Coordinator, who have approved and authorized me to move forward in this fashion. Please let me know if you have any questions.”

Lawrence responded to The Journal’s Feb. 6 request for comment on the ethics line comment in an email. “This situation involved an ongoing personnel matter. The Corporation Counsel represented the county with regard to that ongoing personnel matter, not the employee,” Lawrence said. “The employee had outside counsel representing him. With that said, there were other unrelated county issues that warranted discussion with this employee. However, it was important that the Corporation Counsel limit discussion with the employee to those unrelated issues, all while not discussing the substantive personnel matter with the employee. I fully complied with that responsibility.

“Additionally, any invoices received regarding this matter needed to be redacted for both attorney client privileged information, and due to the confidentiality of a personnel matter, redacted of confidential personnel related information, so that county employees who might be involved in the processing of that invoice, were not provided with that specific confidential information. I would not receive or process any information from the employee, or his counsel, that had not been properly redacted. After communicating with the County Board Chair, I was directed to process properly redacted invoices accordingly, and to inform the finance department that they should expect redacted information, and the reasons supporting that redaction. There was nothing out of the ordinary or unethical with regard to this process, and the intent was to protect confidentiality due to an ongoing personnel matter, and an ongoing attorney client relationship.”