Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council orders review of a decade of outside legal invoices after members raise questions about costs and billing
Summary
Councilmembers spent an extended portion of the workshop scrutinizing legal invoices from multiple firms (several firms and invoice amounts were cited) and directed staff to compile case-level billing and explain certain charges; staff agreed to audit attorney invoices and return with a report and a potential closed-session update from counsel.
Councilmembers on July 8 devoted substantial time to reviewing payments for outside legal services and requested an itemized, case-level audit of attorney invoices spanning several years.
Multiple council members and staff discussed invoices and payments to law firms and outside counsel. Items cited in the meeting included six-month invoice totals and multi-year aggregates: Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore (LCW) invoices totaling roughly $275,002.89 for six months; Chapman invoices (cited amounts near $40,000 in the packet); Costanzo invoices aggregated over 10 years (council members referenced totals of more than $1.7 million over the period); and other firms or line items (Fox Rothschild, William J. Lease, Rockchild) referenced in the packet.
Council members raised specific concerns: apparent billing for non-case items (for example, a line described as “business and facilities”), invoices for appeals that the council speaker said were rejected by a court due to technical defects, and disputed or missing deliverables (for example, a consultant report that a councilmember said was paid for but never received).
Finance staff said the way invoices were coded historically may have mixed attorney services with other professional services; that an account reclassification occurred and that further case-level review would be required to separate background checks or PD-related contractor charges from city-attorney invoices. Councilmembers asked staff to provide a case-by-case breakdown, to verify whether previously unprocessed or late invoices had generated arrears, and to confirm whether the city owed any outstanding amounts to former counsel. One councilmember suggested following up with Chapman and scheduling a closed-session attorney report in August to review litigation strategy and billing questions.
City staff committed to pull warrants, invoices and supporting documentation and return with a written analysis and recommendations. The council did not approve or authorize any specific payments during the workshop; it directed staff to audit invoices and report back.
