Public Records show Former City of Greensboro Attorney Chuck Watts Paid His Former Partnership 'The Banks Law Firm' $681,182.29 Taxpayer Dollars
Financial disclosures fuel existing ethics questions surrounding former City Attorney’s decision to hire his prior law firm.
Former City Attorney Chuck Watts authorized payments totaling $681,182.29 to The Banks Law Firm PA, the partnership where he previously worked, during his tenure. It took 190 days (6 months and 6 days) for the The Financial and Administrative Services Department and The City Attorney’s Office at the City of Greensboro to provide the information, much of which is blacked out.
Dear Mr. Hartzman,
Hello! This was our response to records request #31068, filed on July 30, 2025.
Sincerely,
Kurt Brenneman, Public Records Request Administrator
Greensboro Central Library
219 N. Church Street
Chuck Watts worked for the City of Greensboro as City Attorney for six years. He started on June 1, 2019 and retired effective immediately on July 2, 2025. He hired his former firm right out of the gate;
The financial data adds a concrete dollar figure to longstanding ethical concerns about whether Watts improperly steered city legal work to his former firm.
From Brenneman, Kurt
Dear Requester,
In response to your public records request concerning The Banks Law Firm and Chuck Watts, the Greensboro City Attorney’s Office responds, “The City Attorney’s Office does not have additional records responsive to this request.” The Financial and Administrative Services Department provides the attached records.
The substantial payments directly relate to an emerging ethics scandal. As reported by Public Integrity Watch in September 2025, Watts’s decision to hire and direct work to The Banks Law Firm, his former professional home, prompted an examination of a potential violation of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 1.7 of the state’s professional conduct rules prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s own financial or personal interests will materially limit their representation. Legal ethics experts suggest that hiring one’s former firm creates a clear conflict, as it can suggest favoritism, a lack of independent judgment, or an improper personal benefit through sustained goodwill with former partners.
“The sheer scale of the payments, now publicly confirmed, transforms a theoretical conflict into a quantifiable one,” said a former legal ethics professor from a North Carolina university speaking on background. “More than a half-million dollars in payments to a former partnership is a red flag the State Bar shouldn’t ignore. The question is whether Mr. Watts’s personal interest in maintaining a beneficial relationship with his former colleagues influenced his professional judgment on the city’s behalf.”
The $681,182.29 total suggests this was a sustained source of business for The Banks Law Firm, authorized by its former partner.
For Greensboro’s City Council and residents, the records raise questions about oversight and procurement processes within the city’s legal department. “The public deserves to know that legal contracts are awarded based on merit and cost-effectiveness, not prior relationships,” said the source. “This data demands a transparent review of how and why this firm received so much of the city’s legal business.”
Watts’ actions appear to have violated the City’s Code of Ethics and City Charter.
The Open Legal Question
Separate from State Bar ethics rules, another layer of uncertainty comes from North Carolina law governing public contracts. Specifically, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-234 prohibits public officials from deriving a “direct benefit” from contracts they make or administer.
Whether Watts’s contracts with his former firm fall into that statutory prohibition depends on facts not yet public;
Did Watts retain any financial interest in the firm (ownership, profit-sharing, retirement payout)?
Did his role in signing the contracts constitute “administering” them under the statute?
If the answer to either question is yes, the statute suggests the Watts approved contracts could be a willful violation could even carry criminal liability.
The State Bar enforces professional ethics standards, but the statutory questions fall into a different arena, one of municipal law, contract and potentially criminal law. What’s clear is that the City Attorney’s professional obligations required him to avoid even the appearance of divided loyalties.
Disclaimer
The article “Public Records Show Former City of Greensboro Attorney Chuck Watts Paid His Former Partnership ‘The Banks Law Firm’ $681,182.29” is based on publicly available records and previously published investigative reporting.
Source of Information; The financial figures cited ($681,182.29 and individual payment amounts) were obtained through a public records request fulfilled by the City of Greensboro’s Financial and Administrative Services Department. The ethical and legal context is drawn from the September 15, 2025, report published by Public Integrity Watch.
Allegations and Ongoing Inquiry; References to a potential ethics violation are based on allegations and analysis presented in the aforementioned report. The North Carolina State Bar may or may not be conducting a formal investigation; any such proceeding would be a confidential matter unless and until disciplinary action is taken.
Presumption of Good Faith; The article does not assert that former City Attorney Chuck Watts or The Banks Law Firm PA engaged in unlawful conduct. The purpose of the reporting is to inform the public of documented financial transactions and related ethical questions that have been raised in public forums.
Right to Reply; Efforts were made to include relevant context. Should any party mentioned wish to provide further comment or clarification for the record, they are encouraged to contact the editorial team.
No Legal Opinion; This article should not be construed as a legal opinion or a finding of fault. It is a report on matters of public record and public interest.
Corrections; We are committed to accuracy. If any factual errors are identified, please contact us immediately for correction.
Published for public awareness and discourse.
This is excellent investigative work putting hard numbers on somthing that often stays theoretical. The $681k figure transforms what might have been dismissed as "old connections" into a documented pattern that State Bar ethics rules were designed to prevent. I worked on a municipal cnotract review once where even $50k to a former employer raised red flags, so seeing over half a million makes the conflict of interest argument pretty much undeniable.