The Browns’ football season may be over, but there’s no off-season for the lawyers squabbling over Browns stadium. The latest salvo between Browns’ lawyers Thompson Hine and Cleveland’s counsel Jones Day received plenty of attention this week.
That’s not the only legal wrangling happening behind the scenes.
Cleveland City Hall said it is parting ways with another firm, Ohio-based Bricker Graydon (formerly Bricker & Eckler), because the firm is representing Brook Park as the suburb tries to land a new, roofed Browns stadium.
Bricker had been helping Cleveland set up what’s called a “new community authority,” which would help raise money for waterfront development. In a letter to the firm Jan. 8, Cleveland’s law director wrote that the firm was helping the city do something similar to pay for Gateway ballpark and arena repairs.
Cleveland’s letter argued that representing both cities posed a conflict.
“The interests of Cleveland and Brook Park are directly and indirectly adverse with respect to providing a stadium for the Browns,” Law Director Mark Griffin wrote. “The team can only play in one city.”
The city provided a copy of the letter in response to a question from Signal Cleveland about the dispute.
In a statement to Signal Cleveland, a spokesperson for Bricker Graydon wrote that the law firm did not have a conflict in representing Cleveland and Brook Park. The legal issues presented by a Brook Park stadium project are local ones, the statement read.
“We see no scenario where the City of Cleveland will be on the other side of those issues,” the statement read. “For example, the City of Cleveland would not be affected by any environmental review or rezoning of land in Brook Park, or by the permitting of new structures built in Brook Park. If an issue arises which does present a true conflict of interest, we will certainly discuss that with the City of Cleveland.”
More insights from Nick Castele:
Bricker Graydon’s statement also said that the firm’s work for Cleveland did not involve giving the city legal advice about dealing with the Browns.
There are good reasons Brook Park might want Bricker on its side. The firm represented the City of Columbus in the battle to stop the Crew from leaving town. That fight centered on Ohio’s “Modell Law” and ended favorably for the state capital when the Browns-owning Haslam family and others bought the soccer club.
Plus, the lead Bricker attorney for Brook Park is political veteran Bill Mason, the former Cuyahoga County prosecutor who served as chief of staff for County Executive Armond Budish. Mason took questions from Brook Park council members at a meeting in December.
Cleveland and Brook Park are old rivals. They’ve been in and out of court since the 1990s litigating disputes over Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport and the I-X Center.
Read Bricker Graydon’s full statement below:
Bricker Graydon does not have a conflict of interest in its representation of the City of Brook Park, which involves the development of a stadium on land that is located solely within the City of Brook Park. The project presents many legal issues, including zoning, permitting, environmental reviews, and other real estate-related issues. All of those issues are local issues within the City of Brook Park.
We see no scenario where the City of Cleveland will be on the other side of those issues. For example, the City of Cleveland would not be affected by any environmental review or rezoning of land in Brook Park, or by the permitting of new structures built in Brook Park. If an issue arises which does present a true conflict of interest, we will certainly discuss that with the City of Cleveland.
The City of Cleveland retained Bricker Graydon for unique legal work supporting the development of the Gateway and Public Auditorium sites. The Firm was never retained by the City to provide any legal services relating to the Browns Stadium, the Browns relocation, the Modell lawsuit, or any business dealings with the Haslam family or the NFL. The Firm was not involved or asked by the City to provide any legal advice associated with the Browns. Likewise, the firm has not provided any representation to the Haslam family or the Browns organization. The Firm was retained by Brook Park long after the Browns organization announced its plans to move.
The Firm places a very high value on its relationship with the City of Cleveland and does not make light of the concerns expressed by the City. We hope to work through those concerns in the coming days.
