Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards OCC request to shift underspend to cover rising litigation costs
Summary
The Committee advanced Proposal 3-29 to transfer underspend to cover litigation and outside-counsel costs. An OCC representative said recent cases — including two brought by an out-of-state firm — expose the city to 'tens of millions of dollars' in potential liability and that litigation-related expenses such as expert witnesses and transcripts have increased.
An Office of Corporation Counsel representative told the Admin & Finance Committee on March 29 that Proposal 3-29 requests transferring character-1 underspend to character-3 to cover litigation-related costs and outside counsel contracts.
The OCC representative said litigation costs have increased in recent years and highlighted two suits filed by a national, out-of-state firm that could subject the city to “a significant amount of liability in the tens of millions of dollars.” He told the committee the cases involve specialized subject matter and required the city to retain local firms with prior experience against the opposing firm.
He explained why the transfer is needed: higher discovery and trial costs, deposition and court-transcription expenses, and growing expert witness fees. He also described routine use of conflict counsel under local ordinance when city employees are defendants and OCC attorneys have an ethical conflict.
A councilor queried numeric details in the proposal text, flagging inconsistent figures (one passage read $740,000 while numeric digits suggested $838,000 or $8.38). The OCC representative acknowledged the need to reconcile the text and estimated the city routinely engages roughly 10–12 outside attorneys for recurring matters, while larger law-enforcement cases have historically been handled by a long-standing outside firm.
After questions, a member moved the measure to the full council with a do-pass recommendation. Another seconded; Chair Frank Mascari called for a voice vote and the committee responded 'aye.' The motion carried by voice vote with no roll-call tally recorded. The proposal will proceed to the full council, and OCC and council staff indicated they would reconcile numeric inconsistencies in the ordinance language ahead of final action.
Quote examples from the record include the OCC representative’s description of the stakes: “...a significant amount of liability in the tens of millions of dollars,” and his explanation of cost drivers, including expert witness fees and depositions.
