A former partner with Martin Stringer’s law firm said Thursday he thought Stringer brought former Stillwater Sen. Mike Morgan in to aid Dilworth Development Co. in obtaining approval for a landfill in Kay County.

“It was my understanding that Mr. Stringer did,” said Oklahoma City attorney Ron Walker.

Later, on redirect, Walker said that he himself had no role in deciding to hire Morgan, but thought that Stringer probably did so.

The law firm, McKinney & Stringer, dissolved in November 2005. Stringer moved to the McAfee & Taft firm. Walker said he took the Dilworth account with him.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Williams took Walker through several documents, including Walker’s handwritten notes, firm billing records, legal memos and emails, among others.

Walker testified that it was not his idea for Morgan to receive a $50,000 retainer.

“In terms of the billing lawyer, that was Mr. Stringer,” Walker said of the Dilworth case.

Federal prosecutors contend that Morgan was paid for his influence as Senate president pro tempore, not as an attorney. He was indicted last March on charges of extortion, conspiracy and mail fraud, as were Stringer and lobbyist William “Andy” Skeith. In a separate matter involving an assisted-living company, Morgan alone is accused of bribery.

Williams asked whether Morgan provided any legal services.

“I don’t know of any,” Walker replied.

“You don’t know what Mike Morgan was doing?” Williams asked.

“Correct,” said Walker.

The attorney also told Williams that the goal of some information obtained through Skeith was to draft a presentation to be made to the Kay County commissioners.

Earlier this week Richard and Edith Denton, two of the owners of Dilworth, testified about intense opposition to the solid waste facility, including a group formed specifically to oppose it, as well as balking on the part of the county officials. Dilworth ultimately obtained the permit, but the project has stalled due to finances and a dispute between the Dentons and a partner.

Williams directed Walker’s attention to his personal notes from 2005, including one page that mentioned Skeith along with the language “threat alert” and “get language stricken.”

Walker acknowledged that one of the issues with Dilworth was legislative language that surfaced during the 2005 session that would have prohibited location of a landfill within 20 miles of an existing solid waste site.

He also said he thought that Stringer had been involved in legislative matters previously.

The mileage restriction, referred to as the “20-mile bill,” was removed from the legislation on a second trip through the joint conference process.

Note: Click here for the introduced version of the measure, SB 41 (2005), here for the version in which it was finally signed into law.

Morgan’s attorney, David Ogle, asked whether Morgan’s involvement was a secret.

“It was clear that he was involved,” Walker said. “I think there was even a contract that was prepared.”

Ogle then produced an engagement letter regarding Morgan, which Walker said he was not certain he had seen before.

Ogle asked Walker whether he knew of anything wrongful in the situation with Morgan.

“”If I had knowledge of that, I would not have done it,” he said. “I had no knowledge of any improper actions.”

Stringer’s attorney, Drew Neville, took Walker through several exhibits, including law firm time sheets, which Neville said outlined legal work done for Dilworth by attorneys other than Stringer, including Walker himself.

Neville said the billing records show Walker billing Dilworth for work relating to strategy, litigation, reviewing Skeith’s contract, points to raise with a county prosecutor with the county commissioners and other issues.

Neville also highlighted memos and other documents that he said demonstrate another attorney then with McKinney & Stringer, environmental lawyer Derek Hardberger, did a considerable amount of work for Dilworth. He said one April 2005 Hardberger memo recommended an analysis of the political issues, but does not mention Morgan. He said that in another memo the environmental attorney outlined several action items, but does not mention any work done by Stringer.

Walker said that Hardberger did a lot of the “leg work” on the Dilworth account.

Stringer’s attorney said law firm time sheets for April 2005 show no billing by Stringer and no meetings with either Morgan or Stringer after the Hardberger memo.

Neville said that a May 9, 2005, billing entry indicates that Walker reviewed a modified version of the troublesome legislation, but Walker said he did not know which version he went over. Stringer’s lawyer also said that a Hardberger memo proposing a Dilworth strategy was sent only to Walker, not Stringer.

“That’s what it looks like,” Walker responded.

Yet another memo, this time to Stringer, lays out a summary of an action plan “RLW and I developed,” Neville said.

Neville also said that on several days in May 2005 when billing records showed activity on behalf of Dilworth, Stringer was in Minnesota.

Neville said that another email suggests meeting with Stringer on June 13, 2005, after adjournment of the session in which the offending legislation was considered.

The two attorneys went over several other documents, including remarks Neville attributed to Walker’s June 24, 2005 interview with FBI agents, in which Walker apparently said certain notes were not generated by anything from Stringer.

“You can’t pin it on Martin,” said Neville.

“I’m not trying to pin anything on anybody,” Walker replied.