Orange City council ranks Vos Law Firm first after city-attorney interviews

Orange City’s council on July 15 ranked the Vos Law Firm first among three finalists for the city attorney role and directed staff to enter negotiations with the top-ranked firm and return a proposed contract for council approval.

The decision came after the council conducted separate interviews with three law firms — DSK Law, Fishback Dominic, and Vos Law Firm — following a request-for-proposals process. The council held the interviews in public and then deliberated and voted on a ranked list of firms. The motion to confirm the ranking passed on a roll-call vote with all members voting yes.

The interviews focused on each firm’s municipal experience, availability, proposed fee structure and conflict-of-interest safeguards. Becky Vos, founding partner of the Vos Law Firm, emphasized a fixed monthly retainer in her presentation: “We would charge one retainer fee of $24,000 per month,” she told the council, adding that her firm’s flat-fee proposal would include litigation services. That full flat-fee approach — including litigation — was a distinguishing feature of the Vos proposal and a reason several council members cited for support.

By contrast, Deborah Mitchell, representing DSK Law, presented a model that the firm characterized as a flat-fee retainer for routine municipal work but clarified that litigation would be billed separately. During questioning, Mitchell acknowledged that litigation services would not be part of the monthly flat fee: “If it was a lawsuit and there was a case that was being litigated, that would be a separate” charge, she said in response to a council member’s question about the firm’s $25,000-per-month proposal. DSK also highlighted its larger bench (the firm described itself as a full-service firm with dozens of attorneys and multiple municipal practice resources) and offered availability commitments from named lead and alternate attorneys.

Fishback Dominic presented a different fee structure: an initial monthly block (described in the firm’s presentation as a discounted block of hours) and hourly rates for time beyond that block. Firm partners emphasized board certifications and long municipal relationships with neighboring jurisdictions; they said their approach gives clients access to a “deep bench” of specialists.

Council members repeatedly asked about conflicts of interest, given that several firms already represent other nearby cities. DSK representatives explained a firm policy of generally representing only one city per county to limit conflicts; Fishback and Vos presenters described how they would raise and manage any actual conflicts and coordinate with outside counsel where necessary. The council also pressed firms about how they would work with the city’s existing specialty counsel (for labor or insurance matters) and whether those relationships would continue; firm representatives said they would coordinate with existing counsel rather than replace them abruptly.

After the three interviews and council questioning, the council took public comment (none spoke on the ranking item) and then voted to confirm the ranking. The recorded action directed staff to negotiate with the top-ranked firm and return a proposed contract for council approval.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Confirm ranking of city-attorney finalists and direct staff to negotiate with the top-ranked firm (ranking: 1) Vos Law Firm; 2) DSK Law; 3) Fishback Dominic. Mover: not specified in the record. Second: not specified in the record. Outcome: approved. - Roll-call: Councilmember Stafford — yes; Councilmember Richardson — yes; Councilmember Darmes — yes; Councilmember Knight — yes; Councilmember Johnson — yes; Vice Mayor Grama (referred to as Vice Mayor Graham in the roll call) — yes; Mayor Morris — yes. Tally: Yes 7, No 0, Abstain 0.

What happens next Staff (city manager Gail Arrington and appropriate staff) will schedule negotiation meetings with the top-ranked firm (Vos Law Firm) and attempt to finalize contract terms that reflect the council’s priorities (availability, lead-attorney consistency at meetings, conflict-management procedures, and fee structure). Staff told the council they would bring a negotiated contract back to a public meeting for council approval once terms were reached.

Why it matters The city attorney provides daily legal advice on land use, code enforcement, litigation risk and municipal governance; the council highlighted availability, institutional knowledge and predictable budgeting as key considerations. The council’s direction to negotiate with the top-ranked firm sets the procurement process’ next step: converting the ranking into a formal contract that will define services, who attends which meetings and how litigation and special projects are billed or included.