University of Utah President Arthur K. Smith wants the Legislature to give him permission to hire in-house legal counsel that could help provide "preventive law" for the university.
Attorney General Paul Van Dam, however, told a legislative interim committee that the university is adequately served by his office and that allowing additional counsel for the U. could open up demands from other state agencies.The Education Interim Committee listened to the viewpoints Wednesday, but did not respond. Legislative staff was asked to study the issue further and make a recommendation for later action.
"This is an important issue to the university," said Smith. Finding that as president of the U. he would have no in-house lawyers was one of few down-side surprises he experienced when he came to Utah last fall, he said.
"We may be the only major university in the country without such counsel," Smith said. Having immediate legal advice on such items as contracts, employee disputes and other matters could prevent more serious problems from developing, he said. At present, contracts aren't routinely reviewed and "the number of people who can execute them is not limited. . . We want legal counsel appointed by the university and accountable to the university."
Smith said he was dismayed to learn of one suit against the university - by a disgruntled nurse - in a local newspaper.
Lawyers hired as counsel to university officials still would work closely with the attorney general's office, would not be involved in litigation and would not issue opinions on matters that are the purview of the state, Smith said.
Van Dam said that despite Smith's reassurances, allowing lawyers outside his office to deal with university matters "has the potential for differences of opinion. . . . And other state agencies may want their own attorneys, too."
The concept of a coordinated strategy represented by the current configuration is more important than the university's desires, he said.
Four attorneys of the Attorney General's office are assigned to the university, he said, "probably not enough, but we have slim representation for all agencies." A centralized state legal agency has the advantage of offering a breadth of expertise, he suggested. The U. is provided additional counsel already for patent matters, bonding and other issues as needed.
At the crux of the differences between the two is an antitrust investigation at the university. The antitrust allegations concern relationships between Primary Children's Medical Center and the U. Health Sciences Center. The U.S. Justice Department is conducting the investigation.
Early this year, Smith and Van Dam exchanged angry words regarding the handling of the matter. Wednesday's arguments before the legislative committee appeared to have some left-over rancor related to the basic disagreement.
"A fundamental disagreement on the antitrust issue has clouded the relationship (between the U. and the attorney's office)," said Smith. The presence of legal counsel within the U. might have prevented the problems that ultimately resulted in the antitrust investigation, he suggested.
Van Dam acknowledged that "the relationship is not good. I've been criticized for my role in the antitrust problem, but it's a personal problem (on Smith's part.) I'm doing what I must do as attorney for the state."
Last fall, the university was allowed to hire an in-house attorney, John Morris, who was the U.'s associate academic vice president at the time. Smith said he needs even more in-house counsel and that he has found internal sources to pay for it so the Legislature would not have to be concerned with an appropriation.
Wm. Rolfe Kerr, commissioner for higher education, told the committee that other college and university presidents in the nine-institution Utah system have not expressed any desire for in-house counsel. The U. has the greatest need for such counsel, he said. The university is much like a large corporation and businesses on that scale usually have ample legal counsel.