Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Costa Mesa council approves higher hourly rate for outside law firm amid public criticism of litigation costs
Summary
The City Council approved an amendment increasing Everett Dorey LLP's hourly rate; the move followed public criticism over litigation spending. Council approved the change 6-0 after debate about city legal strategy and outside counsel's role in long-running litigation.
The Costa Mesa City Council on Oct. 7 approved an amendment increasing the hourly rate paid to outside counsel Everett Dorey LLP, a firm that has represented the city in several high-profile land-use and group-home cases. The council vote was 6-0.
The item drew heated public comment before the vote. Jim Fitzpatrick, a resident, asked the council to audit litigation spending and faulted the firm’s tactics and billing as drivers of high legal costs. “Our litigation costs are out of control,” Fitzpatrick told the council and urged termination of the relationship. He said the firm’s approach had driven up city costs and called for clearer oversight.
Mayor John B. Stephens and several council members defended the city’s outside counsel as competent and below-market for their level of experience. Council Member Mike Beaulieu, a 30-year civil litigator, described the issue in a statewide context and said the city’s market-rate comparisons showed Everett Dorey’s amended rate remained competitive. “Based on his skill, his experience … he’s below market rate even with this raise,” Beaulieu said.
The council’s approval authorizes the city manager and city clerk to execute the amendment and any future amendments; the staff report indicated the change is retroactive to Sept. 2, 2025. The amendment increases the city’s appropriation for outside legal services as needed for ongoing litigation; staff said the contract amendment was intended to maintain continuity amid complex matters that require specialized litigation teams.
The vote followed discussion that referenced the city’s cumulative legal spending and the broader trend of rising municipal litigation costs across the state. Council members said they recognized public frustration over legal bills, but they also stressed the difficulty of replacing counsel in active litigation and noted the firm’s role in recent appellate and trial work.
No changes to the firm’s scope or the city’s litigation strategy were passed at the meeting beyond the fee amendment. Council members said they would consider oversight and reporting steps in the future but did not adopt a separate audit or termination at this time.
