Loveland council votes to end outside legal services from Lewis & Roca

The Loveland City Council voted to end the city’s ongoing engagement with the outside law firm formerly known as Lewis & Roca, citing high legal bills and a desire to move work in-house where possible.

Councilor Samson moved to terminate legal services provided by attorneys Michael Plocke and Angela Vichik (Lewis & Roca, now associated with Womble Bond Dickinson), saying the firm’s work had brought several recent dismissals and that the city should stop incurring the high fees. The motion said the termination should occur as soon as practicable but leave discretion to the City Attorney’s Office “so as not to compromise the city’s position.” The council approved the motion in a roll-call vote.

City Attorney Vince (last name not specified in the record) told the council the firm had produced good results in several cases, and he recommended keeping the firm on through the pending fees motion in Larimer County District Court so the city would not jeopardize its position on recovering fees. Council debate focused on cost, timing and the advantage of continuity if appeals occur. An amendment to suspend rather than terminate the engagement — which would have allowed automatic reengagement if needed — failed on a tie vote.

The council approved termination of the engagement after receiving assurances from the City Attorney that Lewis & Roca would remain on for the fees hearing scheduled for late January and that the City Attorney’s Office would retain discretion to reengage outside counsel if appeals or other needs made that necessary.

The motion was introduced during new business and passed in a roll-call vote. According to the council record, the motion’s supporters said the city had spent roughly $600,000 with the firm in 2024, and council members said they wanted to preserve professional-services budget capacity for other city priorities.

The City Attorney said he would coordinate the transition and return to council if supplemental budget appropriations or other actions were needed. No appeal or replacement counsel was named in the meeting.

Ending the firm’s ongoing role was presented as a cost-control and management decision rather than a critique of legal work quality; the City Attorney repeatedly acknowledged the firm’s results while urging prudence in switching counsel during active fee litigation.