Adirondack Park Agency Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs John Burth presents at the agency’s Ray Brook headquarters on the proposed howitzer testing range in the town of Lewis in November. The APA board subsequently voted to send the project to an adjudicatory hearing, which is set to start on April 22. (Enterprise photo — Chris Gaige)

RAY BROOK — The administrative law judge overseeing the Adirondack Park Agency’s upcoming adjudicatory hearing for a proposed howitzer testing range in the town of Lewis ruled on Friday that the applicant’s attorney and law firm will be allowed to remain on the case.

The decision denied a challenge from Adirondack Council, an environmental conservation advocacy group — a party to the hearing — which is opposed to the proposed howitzer range. Adirondack Council asked that attorney Matthew Norfolk, who represents project sponsor Michael Hopmeier, through his company, Unconventional Concepts, Inc., be removed from the hearing process.

Adirondack Council contended that Norfolk and his firm, Norfolk Beier, should have been disqualified because of a conflict of interest stemming from the firm’s hiring of attorney Sarah Reynolds in May 2025. Reynolds previously worked as an associate counsel for the APA, and had been involved in the agency’s handling of the howitzer matter. Norfolk submitted a seven-point rebuttal for Administrative Law Judge David Greenwood to consider. More on Adirondack Council’s motion, along with Norfolk’s objection, can be found at tinyurl.com/v4nwhmyz.

No other parties, including the APA, submitted material on the matter. Greenwood originally wrote that he would rule on this by Feb. 10. It was unclear what caused the delay, though the hearing’s start had since been pushed back until April 22.

Greenwood’s 10-page ruling framed the decision as a balancing test, with the reasons against disqualifying Norfolk outweighing the reasons for doing so. He listed factors in favor of Adirondack Council’s motion as being the nature, duration and severity of the alleged conflict of interest, its potential to harm Adirondack Council’s interest as a hearing party, the hearing’s integrity and the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety going forward.

Greenwood’s reasons against the motion include what he found was a lack of standing from the Adirondack Council to make the motion. This was something Greenwood said the APA would have if it had chosen to file this type of challenge. Similarly, another reason against the motion was the APA’s lack of action on this matter, which Greenwood wrote, “one could infer that the Agency does not feel that the conflict requires disqualification.”

The administrative law judge also found that Norfolk Beier had implemented screening measures to prevent Reynolds from discussing or being involved in the howitzer matter in any way once she was employed by the firm. Even though he wrote that these measures were “imperfect,” Greenwood said they constituted a reason against Adirondack Council’s motion to disqualify Norfolk. Another reason Greenwood listed was Reynolds’ subsequent departure from Norfolk Beier in December, stating that “the term of conflict has ended.”

Greenwood’s final reason against disqualifying Norfolk was that removing Hopmeier’s chosen counsel would create a “substantial burden” for him, given that Norfolk has represented him in the howitzer matter since the early days when it was before the APA in 2022.

“Requiring the Project Sponsor to obtain new counsel after so much time and on the eve of the public hearing commencement would be a substantial burden,” he wrote.

Greenwood cited case law that stated disqualification motions carry a “heavy burden and must satisfy a high standard of proof,” and the judges ruling on them “must recognize that disqualification has an immediate adverse effect on the client by separating him from counsel of his choice, and that disqualification motions are often interposed for tactical reasons.”

Greenwood was not persuaded by Norfolk’s argument that the power to disqualify attorneys is solely under the jurisdiction of courts, not executive branch hearing officers. Greenwood wrote that he disagreed, and cited several past instances where administrative law judges have taken up disqualification matters stemming from alleged conflicts of interest, including one case where the hearing officer ruled to disqualify a law firm.

He was also not persuaded by Norfolk’s argument that the purported conflict of interest couldn’t have imputed to the entire firm, although this was effectively assuaged by the screening measures that Greenwood found had been carried out.

Adirondack Council communications director John Sheehan said the group accepts Greenwood’s ruling.

“Obviously, he felt that the APA should have been the one to bring the motion for disqualification if there was going to be one,” he said. “We think that his finding appropriately balances the law firm’s failure to obtain the necessary waiver with the corrective measures that were revealed under oath, essentially to ensure that no improper communications occurred. As far as we’re concerned, that’s the end of it.”

Norfolk did not immediately respond to the Enterprise’s request for comment as of press time Wednesday. To view Greenwood’s ruling in its entirety, along with other hearing materials, visit tinyurl.com/mpdramry.