LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: SPEAKER RESPONDS TO CHARGES OF UNETHICAL CONDUCT

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in response to recent criticisms directed at me because of my representation as a lawyer of a client involved in a contractual dispute with the Sahara Company of Las Vegas, Nevada. Allegations have been made that this representation was unethical and perhaps violative of statutes pertaining to the gaming industry in Missouri. It is my belief then, as it is now, that such representation did not violate any statutes or regulations of the State of Missouri nor did I at any time violate the canons of professional responsibility by inappropriate conduct as a practicing attorney and member of the Bar.

I have been a practicing attorney since my admission to the Missouri Bar in 1959. I served in the Air Force from 1959-1962, in the Advocate General's office and as a prosecuting attorney for Clinton County from 1963 to 1970 when I was elected to the Missouri House. I have been a member of the General Assembly for 24 years and have served as Speaker since 1982. During these years I have supported myself and my family as a lawyer with offices in Kansas City and Cameron, Missouri.

As a member of the General Assembly I voted in favor of and strongly supported the stringent and protective gaming industry statutes. These statutes place appropriate limitations on public officials and legislators and their participation in gaming activities.

My services as a practicing attorney were sought by Public Issue Management, Inc. (PIM) in their negotiations with the Sahara Gaming Corporation because of my legal expertise in reaching amicable compromises between interested parties. Therefore, I became involved as legal counsel for PIM with the understanding that these negotiations could be worked out in a friendly manner.

While I was of legal counsel for PIM, all of my dealings were with Mike Burke of the Kansas City law firm of Wirken and King, legal counsel to the Sahara Corporation. I had no communications with any other Sahara representatives.

Because no application had been filed and no branch of state government or state agency was involved in these negotiations, I felt quite comfortable in acting in a legal capacity for these proceedings. Those of us in the General Assembly who make our living practicing law are always extremely cautious that no possible conflict of interest with our legislative work ever occurs, and establishing a dialogue between my client and the Sahara clearly did not offer such a conflict.

In my capacity as an attorney, I contacted Mike Burke and attempted to establish a dialogue with him. Throughout our discussions, he never once indicated that Sahara was uncomfortable with me representing PIM or that the company felt pressured or intimidated in any way. On the contrary, he welcomed my participation in order to facilitate a settlement in these negotiations. In fact, a substantial settlement was offered by Mike Burke, attorney for Sahara, which my client rejected because it was not in accord with the original agreement.

I also had no concern of any improprieties when I set forth written settlement proposals to be considered by the Sahara. This was a part of my duty as the attorney for PIM. My correspondence with Mike Burke dealt with the dispute over ownership in the company, and nothing else.

I certainly had no contact with the State Gaming Commission or any state government officials or agencies about this matter. Whether the Sahara received a license or did not is solely the responsibility of the commission, and we of the General Assembly have taken every precaution necessary to ensure that no outside forces intrude on the commission's decisions. In addition, Gov. Carnahan has taken great pains to appoint people to the commission of the highest integrity to protect the future of gaming in the state of Missouri. I would not and certainly could not hold the power of the State Gaming Commission over the Sahara's head as a threat since I have no control over the commission's activities.

In addition, since any financial gain on the part of PIM was predicated on Sahara receiving a license and having a Parkville boat in operation, the absurd notion that I would attempt to make any statement or perform any action which would threaten Sahara's license lacks any reasonable shred of credibility because such an action would have been contrary to the interests of my client and would have jeopardized PIM's proposed ownership.

My letter of September 9, 1993, to Sahara's attorney Mike Burke, which was reprinted in the Kansas City Star, was only sent because of the necessity of informing the Sahara Corporation of the ownership percentages claimed by the PIM group. If Sahara were to choose to acknowledge PIM ownership rights, this ownership percentage information would be necessary for Sahara to file a complete and accurate application with the Missouri Gaming Commission. If Sahara was not going to acknowledge this claimed interest and was not going to reach a settlement with my client, it was also incumbent on Sahara to advise the state gaming commission of the disputed interest.

However, when it appeared that no settlement could be reached and Sahara made initial contact with the state of Missouri about obtaining a license, I immediately removed myself from the case because continuing to represent PIM at this time could have been perceived as a conflict of interest on my part.

I also want to make it clear that I do not nor did I ever have any ownership in this or any other gaming operation and that the only thing I received from my preliminary negotiations with Sahara was payment of my legal fees from PIM.

I regret that these preliminary contractual negotiations have now in retrospect elicited such harsh feelings from the Sahara Corporation that they would attempt to impugn my reputation. At the time I removed myself as counsel for the negotiations, the relationships between all parties and attorneys was amicable. This is simply a contractual dispute which has turned ugly, and I should have never been drawn into the line of fire. I have been both a representative and an attorney for 24 years, and I know where the lines between those two roles need to be drawn. The bottom line is that I in no way attempted to use my legislative position to apply any type of pressure on the Sahara Company.

I welcome any type of constructive investigation into this matter which will clear the air as soon as possible because I have committed no acts which could ever be construed to be unethical or illegal.

BOB F. GRIFFIN

Speaker

Missouri General Assembly