Lawyer denies Killington conflict-of-interest claim
Toolbox
By Cristina Kumka Staff Writer - Published: May 19, 2009
KILLINGTON — Peter Langrock of the Middlebury law office of Langrock Sperry & Wool denied he had a conflict of interest after the question was raised by the chairman of the town's Planning Commission Wednesday.
The town's Planning Commission voted to ask Langrock and his associates if giving the town advice on a conceptual and planned unit development application recently submitted by SP Land Co. flies in the face of legal ethics because the firm is also representing someone suing SP Land at this time.
"Should Langrock's firm recuse themselves from representing us based on a conflict of interest?" the commission agreed to ask in writing.
Commission Chairman David Rosenblum, an attorney by profession himself, brought the matter to his fellow commissioners after he realized Langrock was representing Martin Post, Jill Post, Judith Dark and William Langlais in a pending federal class action lawsuit they have against Killington Resort and its partner, SP Land Co., over the validity of season passes issued by the resort's former owner, American Ski Co.
"It's a remote conflict, but it's there," Rosenblum said. "The applicant (SP Land Co.) is the object of the lawsuit brought by Langrock."
Rosenblum asked how he could accept advice from a legal counsel who is pursuing a lawsuit against the same party.
Langrock said he hasn't been asked by the Planning Commission to render an opinion on the SP Land development application, but if the commission did ask him a question, he would answer it.
A conflict doesn't exist, Langrock said.
"Our loyalty has always been to our client Killington and members of our class (in the federal lawsuit)," Langrock said.
"In representing the class against SP Land, we don't believe there's a conflict in representing the town of Killington in matters that come before them."
cristina.kumka@rutlandherald.com
20