Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Outside Counsel Groberson topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves outside law firm for long-running Groberson litigation after staffing questions; vote 12-1
Summary
The City Council voted 12-1 to contract with an outside law firm to continue defense work on a long-running lawsuit; council members debated whether the city attorney's office should handle the case in-house and whether the change reflected a conflict or staffing shortfall.
The Los Angeles City Council approved, 12-1, retention of an outside law firm to continue representing city defendants in long-running litigation brought by an attorney identified in the record as Groberson.
Councilmember Wax and others questioned why outside counsel was necessary for a case the city had defended for many years. "Tell us why we need to have an outside lawyer for this. They've been handling this case for years inside. How come now there's an outside lawyer coming in?" Wax asked during the debate.
Blythe Smith, described in the hearing as the trial lawyer on the matter, told the council the outside firm had been brought into the action in October 1998 and that the attorneys active on the litigation recently changed law firms. Smith said the motion before the council substituted the new firm so those same attorneys could continue to be paid and continue their representation after the firm change.
City attorney office representatives told the council the matter had required significant resources over many years. When pressed whether the city attorney's office lacked staff to handle the case, counsel said, "Under current staffing, we cannot," citing the practical need for outside counsel rather than a conflict of interest as the basis for the contract.
Some councilmembers expressed discomfort with the explanation; one member said they would vote no. After discussion, the council approved the contract authorization with 12 ayes and one no.
The motion authorized outside counsel substitution and an additional $50,000 to continue representation (the agenda item indicates funding to cover ongoing legal work); council discussion clarified that the attorneys involved had represented city defendants on the case since 1998 and that the requested contract formalized payment arrangements after a law firm change.
The authorization does not disclose settlement amounts or merits of the litigation; the discussion focused on staffing, continuity of legal representation and the procedural reason for bringing the substituted firm before council.
