Nice opinion.

I deserve money (from somebody, anybody) because I acted ethically.

Not stated directly in the opinion but most certainly familiar to this judge are the OSB rules applicable to lawyers regarding acting ethically, at the direct expense of personal gain. It looks like the plaintiff would have lost before even setting foot in court. ("This should not be taken, in any way, as condoning the mayor's behavior or discrediting plaintiff's reaction, which was admirable in many respects.")

Tactical plaintiff error -- quitting.

Tactical defendant coup -- not telling media to meet him (to talk about sex) after work while off city property and when he is not busy (apparently) doing city business.

"* * * [I]nquiries about plaintiff's resignation was [] clearly within the scope of his official duties. * * *"

But I would not say the same about the sex talk, specifically as to who pays the mayor's legal bill for the other matters. Someone might construe the point about the press release being within the "scope of official duties" as meaning that the whole case was also with the "scope of official duties" and that the defendant was entitled to free legal services from the city attorney for the whole matter. The judge did not say that the mayor did not lie, but that the plaintiff took it upon himself (before resignation) to parrot a lie that they all knew was a lie (wink wink).

Lying is not "clearly within the scope of his official duties," the mayor's duties. Nor is hiring a PR guy that was supposed to be savvy enough to knowingly lie to the public, without mayor's objection. I hope that the city attorney staff will document their time and billable hours with as much attention to detail as they would if they were to demand that the plaintiff cover the defendant's legal expenses, with the judge's review and approval. And then deliver a bill to Mr. Adams.