WEST MILFORD - A one-of-its-kind regulation in West Milford seems certain to be removed from township codes in the next few weeks. The Attorney Ethics Ordinance is scheduled to be revoked following a consensus poll of the township council taken Wednesday evening. The council divided along party lines in the split decision. The ethics rule requires that all attorneys hired by the township must sign a statement within seven days of being hired, allowing a record of their ethical history be made available upon public request. By removing this law, attorneys will no longer be required to sign such a document. Councilman Phil Weisbecker led the call to abolish the regulation. The ironic aspect to Weisbecker’s role in removing the rule is that the Attorney Ethics Ordinance was introduced during his six-month stint as mayor in 2003. “In 2003, I thought it was a good ordinance,” said Weisbecker. “Since then it has failed.” Weisbecker cited the recent costly litigation, known as Paff v. Byrnes, when open government activist John Paff requested a copy of the ethics history of previous township attorney William DeMarco. Paff’s request was denied by then township clerk Kevin Byrnes. Paff took his request to the courts, and although his complaint was initially denied, he later won his case on appeal due to the fact that DeMarco had signed the waiver allowing public access to his ethical history. The taxpayer cost of fighting the case was some $30,000 to $50,000, depending on who tells the story. Weisbecker said, “It (Paff v. Byrnes) opened up the township to litigation that cost the town thousands of dollars. It could open up the township again to another lawsuit and I don’t think it’s to the benefit of the township.” Weisbecker argued that access to any attorney’s ethical history or records of complaints can be gained from the internet and therefore the town’s ruling is unnecessary. Councilman Bob Nolan, who is against repealing the attorney ordinance, said, “We’re not lacking for attorneys in the town and the public knows that the attorneys who have been hired, have signed this document. We should leave this ordinance as it is.” Fellow Democratic council member, James Warden, also opposes attempts to dispose of the ordinance. “I don’t know why you’d want to repeal this,” said Warden. Addressing Weisbecker and referring to future appointments, Warden said, “Maybe you (Weisbecker) are considering appointing a new attorney with an ethics history. This ordinance did not cost the township money. The council did.” Warden was referring to his opinion that the township’s decision to fight the Paff v. Byrnes case was a costly mistake that could have been avoided. Weisbecker replied, “If the ordinance didn’t exist, it couldn’t have cost the township money. We were told other townships would jump on the bandwagon and adopt this ordinance. They didn’t.” The proverbial elephant in the room, township attorney Fred Semrau, took an expected neutral position; however, he said, “This ordinance is very easy for attorneys. You just sign the form and send it in. This mechanism provides an immediate history.” A consensus opinion was sought from the council and the response was split directly down party lines. The four Republican council men, Weisbecker, Joseph Smolinksi, Sal Schimmenti and Carmen Scangarello approved listing the ordinance for removal. Warden and Nolan rejected Weisbecker’s call. The ordinance will likely be repealed at one of the next two scheduled meetings, either on Feb. 14 or Feb. 28.