Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Contracts Outside Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council approves continued outside counsel for disputed project after substitute motion fails
Summary
The Los Angeles City Council approved the original recommendation to continue outside counsel work on a contested project contract with Nossaman LLP after a substitute motion to change reporting and funding rules failed. The substitute would have capped authority at $100,000 and required additional reports; it did not pass.
The Los Angeles City Council on March 25 approved the original recommendation on item 1 — an authorization related to the outside counsel contract with Nossaman LLP (contract C146250) for litigation connected to a city project. The council defeated a substitute motion and then approved the original recommendation by majority vote.
The substitute motion, introduced by Councilmember Soto‑Martinez, would have amended the item to (1) cap the authority at $100,000, (2) require a one‑month report clarifying the financial risk of each claim, (3) require a three‑month progress report on the lawsuit and discussions with plaintiffs, (4) direct analysis of moving management of the lawsuit in‑house after outside counsel funds are exhausted, and (5) assess feasibility of consolidating related lawsuits. The council voted against substituting that motion; the substitute failed and the original recommendation was approved.
Councilmember Soto‑Martinez read the substitute language into the record and requested the additional reporting and limits. Councilmember Park opposed substitution during roll call. The clerk recorded the substitute vote as failing; the original recommendation then passed. Following a clerical adjustment requested by a councilmember, the final tally was recorded as nine ayes and four noes.
The council did not adopt the substitute reporting schedule or the $100,000 cap. The meeting record shows the City Attorney will continue with the previously authorized scope for the outside counsel contract; the council did not adopt the substitute reporting timeline.
Because the substitute motion failed, council members did not create the additional reporting deadlines the substitute proposed. The City Attorney was not given new citywide directives in the meeting record beyond the approved original recommendation.
Ending: The council approved the original recommendation on item 1; the motion to substitute failed. The City Attorney's office retains existing authority under the approved contract amendment. The council did not adopt the substitute reporting or cap provisions.
