Jefferson County Sheriff requests additional reimbursement of legal fees

FAIRFIELD – Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond appeared before the county supervisors Monday to ask for the reimbursement of his legal fees.

In March, Richmond requested just under $41,000 from the supervisors to pay fees he sustained in his litigation with the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office to have his name removed from the Brady-Giglio list. The supervisors approved that request on a 2-1 vote with Joe Ledger and Lee Dimmitt voting in favor, and Susie Drish voting against.

At Monday’s meeting, July 21, Richmond appeared before the board to ask for an additional roughly $7,000 in legal fees he has incurred in recent months, after Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding appealed the district’s court’s decision on Feb. 27 that granted Richmond’s request to be removed from the Brady-Giglio list, a list of officers the prosecutor believes to be untrustworthy. Moulding had placed Richmond on this list in 2024, claiming he had obstructed an investigation, but Judge Jeffrey Farrell ultimately sided with Richmond, saying there was “no evidence in this case that Richmond was dishonest or did not tell the truth.”

After expressing their own opinions on the case and addressing both Richmond and Moulding, the supervisors did not hold a vote on Richmond’s request for legal fees. Instead, they encouraged the two men to meet and work out their differences.

At the start of discussions, Ledger indicated that he was open to Richmond’s request for reimbursement.

“Something needs to be done,” he said. “It’s costing, costing, costing, and it’s unnecessary. They went through one court and were told [Richmond’s name] had to be removed [from the Brady-Giglio list], and that hasn’t happened. We have to protect our county employees, that’s the way I feel.”

Moulding then joined the supervisors at their table and said he was unaware until he called the auditor’s office out of curiosity that the agenda item “discuss and consider legal fees” referred to Richmond’s request for reimbursement of legal fees.

“I am a little surprised my office wasn’t alerted to this issue, and am somewhat concerned that the extremely vague reference on the agenda does not adequately advise the public as to the issue before the Board,” Moulding wrote in an email to the supervisors on Sunday, July 20.

Moulding said that the supervisors’ earlier approval of nearly $41,000 to Richmond and this new request for $7,000 are “not only unlawful, but may be subject to recovery.” Moulding reiterated the same arguments he made when the supervisors last discussed this in March, that attorney fees are only recoverable when explicitly authorized by statute or contract. In a memo to the supervisors, Moulding wrote that Iowa Code obligates the county to defend officers involved in litigation only when they are sued or acting in their official capacity, and in this case, Richmond is the plaintiff, and Moulding argued that Richmond is acting in his personal capacity and not his official capacity since Richmond cites reputational harm and impairment to future employment as the basis for his legal action.

Moulding and the supervisors also addressed House File 862, made effective in May 2025, that permits supervisors to obtain outside counsel where there is a conflict of interest with the county attorney. Moulding argued this law does not apply to Richmond’s case because the new provision does not retroactively authorize prior payment of legal expenses, does not apply to lawsuits initiated by county officials in their personal capacities, and because Richmond was “not seeking representation by the board but rather reimbursement from the board for litigation against the county.”

Moulding wrote in his memo that improper expenditures must be repaid by the recipients or those who authorized them, and that county officers may be held personally liable for misappropriation of public funds.

Dimmitt said he did not perceive House File 862 as “black and white” like Moulding did. He said the supervisors have been put in a difficult position resulting from a conflict between two elected officials. He said he didn’t want to have a fight with either the sheriff’s office or county attorney’s office, and implored Moulding to drop his appeal of the case and “get back to business.”

“I’m asking you as a friend to reconsider, to end this and not pursue it any further,” Dimmitt told Moulding.

“I would love that, but we are the defendants in this case,” Moulding replied.

“But you appealed. You had the option to withdraw that appeal and end this,” Dimmitt said. “I’m looking at the bigger picture, and I see no winners in this. It’s a bad look for Jefferson County as a whole, and it needs to stop.”

At that point, Richmond, who was sitting on a bench next to the supervisors, said, “It’s his actions, not mine. It was all him. This has been going on since 2020, the stuff you’ve been pulling.”

Ledger echoed Dimmitt’s request to Moulding to drop his appeal of the case, saying it was a waste of money. He also said he was frustrated that he’s asked Moulding three times how much money he’s spent on the case and never received an answer.

Drish spoke briefly on the matter, saying that all sides need to respect each other and “not our own egos.” She indicated she was concerned about the prospect of the supervisors having to personally repay the county for the $41,000 they allocated to Richmond in March.

The supervisors did not vote on Richmond’s request for $7,000, and there was some confusion about what the next steps were going to be. Dimmitt said he asked Richmond and Moulding to meet, and hopes they will “put this to rest.” Ledger said he was under the impression that Moulding had agreed to drop his appeal and move on, though when contacted after the meeting, Moulding told The Union that he just agreed to have a conversation with Richmond to talk about “issues he has with working and cooperating with this office.”

“This whole case stems from stonewalling and lack of communication from the sheriff,” Moulding said. “I am certainly interested in sitting down with him and trying to address the lack of communication and cooperation issues, which would certainly benefit the county.”

Richmond could not be reached for comment before press time.

  Buy Photo

Call Andy Hallman at 641-575-0135 or email him at andy.hallman@southeastiowaunion.com

  Buy Photo

  Buy Photo