Little Rock used delaying tactics to dig itself out of a lack of preparation in a discrimination lawsuit against it, the attorney representing a former police officer in the case said in court filings this week.

Circuit Judge Tim Fox has made similar comments in recent weeks, even levying a $10,000 penalty against the city for failure to be ready for trial in the case of Tiffany Malone v. City of Little Rock.

The city denied the allegation and said Fox's penalty is illegal under state law. It plans to appeal the sanction.

Lucien Gillham, Malone's attorney, expressed frustration in a court filing Wednesday over city officials' comments at recent court hearings and in an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article about the reasons for the city's request for continuance in the case.

Malone alleges gender discrimination and retaliation from the Little Rock Police Department in her 2014 lawsuit, which was originally set for a three-day jury trial at the beginning of this month.

"Defendants have now gained the tactical advantage it sought -- a continuance to dig themselves out of the position they put themselves in, and wish to pay no price for it. For Plaintiff, justice delayed is justice denied. Unnecessary fees and costs have been incurred," Gillham wrote in a court filing Wednesday.

Gillham took issue with City Attorney Tom Carpenter's previous assertions that the city was ready for trial.

The city attorney handling defense in the case, LaTonya Austin, had filed a third request for continuance a week before the trial was set to begin. Fox granted the continuance April 25 after denying Austin's previous two requests, but he also levied the $10,000 fine in an order in which he expressed frustration with the city's behavior and what he said amounted to lack of preparedness.

Austin resigned the day the fine was levied after being given the choice to resign or be fired.

"If they were prepared for trial, why did they need a continuance?" Gillham wrote. "If defense counsel had properly prepared the case, what was the reason for demanding Austin's resignation? What was the reason for Carpenter's memo reported in the press that 'This should have never happened. From the personnel standpoint, the situation is being addressed already.'?"

Gillham was referring to a memo Carpenter sent to the city Board of Directors on April 25 informing it of the penalty ordered by Fox.

When the city didn't pay the fine within 10 days as Fox ordered, the judge called City Manager Bruce Moore to court to explain why the city shouldn't be held in contempt. The hearing took place Monday, and Fox has yet to rule on the contempt matter.

At the hearing, Fox admonished the city again for not being prepared for the Malone trial, alleging that a list of witnesses wasn't presented on time.

In an interview afterward, Austin said she sent the city's list of witnesses to the court the same day Gillham sent his client's list.

She also said a continuance had been needed in part because Gillham said he might call as a witness anyone involved in three other lawsuits he's handling against the city. Austin said she wasn't prepared for that, and it was unreasonable for her to know all the evidence and witnesses from those three additional cases just weeks before trial in the Malone case.

But Gillham said in his filing Wednesday that he repeatedly made Austin aware that the four cases were related.

Malone is alleging a widespread pattern of sex discrimination by the mostly male management of the Police Department. Similar experiences of three other female officers who have sued the city are pertinent to Malone's case, Gillham wrote in previous court filings.

"In a period of a few years, nearly 25 women complained of sex discrimination by the department, which is saying something, since the department is probably only 25 percent female. That amounts to around 20 percent of all women employed by the department complaining of sexual harassment," Gillham previously wrote. "Malone alleges a pattern and practice of discrimination."

Reached by phone Thursday to respond to Gillham's comments, Austin said that just because the cases are related doesn't mean Gillham can put a "catch-all" phrase in his witness list that includes everyone in the other cases.

Gillham said the city also had two years since Malone filed her lawsuit to issue discovery, yet it hadn't. Austin also had not taken any depositions in the case.

"They had not followed the court's instruction at the pretrial conference to get Austin backup counsel in a case they knew to be complex, and they now claim they were ready for trial," Gillham said.

Austin has been replaced on the case by two other city attorneys since Fox levied the penalty against the city.

"They were seeking delay. They were also seeking the continuance for an improper purpose, to obtain tactical advantage by doing discovery, when they failed to do it previously," Gillham wrote. "This necessarily increased plaintiff's costs and fees in this case since significant preparation had to be done."

Austin has said her requests for continuances were partly because of two unexpected surgeries to remove a mass found during a mammogram.

She defended her actions in Thursday's phone interview.

"No, I did not conduct discovery, and that was because of a lot of the medical issues I was having that kind of got me backed up," she said.

"I'm not the first attorney who's missed a deadline and I won't be the last," she said. "There are rules in place that give the judge discretion on extending those deadlines even after the deadline has passed, and that's because missing deadlines was obviously contemplated by those who drafted that statute."

The Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure allow sanctions against an attorney if the attorney purposefully attempts to delay a trial. Carpenter has argued that the city didn't do that.

Gillham argued that Austin's surgeries weren't the only cause of the delays.

"Part of the reason for the delay on the mediation was Austin's health issues, at which counsel throws no stones. If that were the only issue, these discussions would not be occurring," he wrote.

Gillham's filing Wednesday was a response to Carpenter's previous motion for Fox to reconsider his fine against the city.

Gillham said in a phone interview Thursday that he didn't intend to respond to that motion -- and in fact Fox already has denied it, so a response doesn't matter -- but that he wanted to rebut on the record recent claims by Austin and the city.

A three-day jury trial in the Malone case has been rescheduled for winter 2017.

"It cost us nine months," Gillham said of the delays in the case.

Attempts to reach Carpenter by email and phone Thursday were unsuccessful. His voice-mail message said he was in a hearing Thursday morning.

Metro on 05/20/2016